International Aerospace Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by member_28108 »

Shows how tricky rocket launching is. You can't just get the technology from someone and sya I will reduplicate it. Lack of resources has made reuse of even the original Apollo engines difficult as theprogram was stopped. Reigniting the F 1 engines were itself difficult

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/ ... to-life/2/
member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by member_23694 »



much better video, somehow get the feeling something to do with between 1st and 2nd stage. probably the 2nd stage ignited early.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by TSJones »

This is indeed a setback for SpaceX but not necessarily for NASA.

SpaceX just received Air Force certification to compete with ULA and get some DoD launch business. Dod takes a dim view of losing a billion dollar + satellite to a bad launch. So its not good for SpaceX's entry into the defense launch business.

It should be noted that the Atlas rocket program has had *decades* of operational history. They darn well should have all the bugs worked out of that rocket system by now. SpaceX will get there eventually too, *if* given a chance by the DoD. Unfortunately, only time will tell. The DoD is highly risk averse for their payloads.

But NASA is not so risk averse. SpaceX is only one of a number of systems they are paying to launch cargo to the ISS. They've got backups for their backups, man. The only risk aversion NASA has to new systems is for manned launches and that should be somewhat obvious. Getting people killed is bad PR for NASA and Congress gets really torqued up about it. However, SpaceX has stated that due to the safety systems that will be used in the launch of a manned Dragon capsule in the future, today's explosion would not have killed the astronauts if they would have been aboard. You can take that statement with a pound or two of salt. *I* wouldn't want to be on that capsule when the rocket failed. No sirree Bob, despite the Dragon's launch escape system. However, in all fairness, it should be noted that the Space Shuttle had no launch escape system. Zero. Zip. Nada. Light 'em up boyz! Yeehaw!

ULA has other competitors than SpaceX. Orbital wants their business. Aerojet Rocketdyne wants to stick their AR-1 engine in Atlas. They say anybody should be able to build and launch Atlas rockets. The Air Force has stated they *don't own* the Atlas design specs or manufacturing techniques. Which is a rather strange thing to say since they paid for most of it. Anyhoo, people are casting covetous eyes on ULA's business and its failure to develop an R-180 alternative. Aerojet Rocketdyne say it is ridiculous to design a whole new Vulcan rocket to Blue Origin's engine. Just adapt the present Atlas design to Rocketdyne's AR-1. I would take that statement with a pinch or two of salt also.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Austin »

Space launch is a risky business , you can have many successful launches and then sudden back to back failures , they just need to pickup and move on , the only rocket that wont explode is the one that never gets launched.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

A couple of articles highlighting both GE's and P&W's work on adaptive engines..

GE Advances Future Fighter Engine
Development of revolutionary engines at GE Aviation is setting the stage for the next 50 years in military aircraft propulsion, engineers there believe. Just as the turbojet engine gave way to the turbofan half a century ago, so GE’s unique adaptive cycle, three-stream engine architecture could bring fighters of the future both higher performance and longer range with less fuel burn.

The engine can adapt in flight to give maximum thrust or long-range cruise, while a third stream of air will cool both the engine and the aircraft’s systems, explains Jean Lydon-Rodgers, vice president and general manager of GE Aviation’s military systems.

GE Aviation finished running a proof-of-concept engine last year under the U.S. Air Force-backed Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program, and is now wrapping up analysis of what it termed highly successful tests. These included the highest combined compressor and turbine temperature operation “in the history of jet engine propulsion.”

GE’s adaptive cycle engine architecture is unique to the aero engine industry, says Daniel McCormick, general manager of advanced combat engine programs at GE Aviation. It is now being applied to the next step – an engine that could fit an F-35-like aircraft. “This culminated in March in a preliminary design review,” he says, that involved the Air Force, NASA and Lockheed Martin, among others. This program, dubbed Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD), will involve three major rigs run through 2016 for the compressor, a fan with adaptive features, and a core engine test, but not for a full-up engine.

GE is now helping shape a follow-on program, the Air Force-backed Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), that would involve multiple full-up engine tests. “If it proceeds we could run multiple engines through 2018-19,” McCormick said.

“The sixth-generation fighter engine is a big piece of the future of the business. That’s why we’re investing heavily in it,” says Lydon-Rodgers.That investment also involves materials including ceramic matrix composites and titanium aluminides, and techniques such as additive manufacturing, to make the engines lighter and more robust while running hotter and providing more power. The military engines are benefitting from GE’s huge investment in such materials and manufacturing readiness for its next generation of commercial engines, which helps keep the costs down for the warfighter, she says.

While an adaptive cycle, three-stream engine could power next-generation fighters, it could also be seen as a possible retrofit and upgrade for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, where it would improve performance and range and remove some of the low altitude/high speed flight restrictions imposed by current issues with thermal management of the aircraft and its systems.
Video- http://aviationweek.com/GEadaptivecycle

ANALYSIS: Adaptive engine technology moves beyond the fan
A 10- to 15-year look ahead into Pratt & Whitney’s vision for military engine technology reveals a very different kind of propulsion system.

It may not be enough for the motor powering the next fighter, bomber or airlifter to simply generate thrust and electric power for a given weight and fuel burn requirement. The future military turbofan could be a far more complex, adaptable machine.

As a throttle governs the amount of fuel flow in engines today, in future, new software and electronic controls will be able to modulate a motor’s bypass airflow and power off-take. Turbofan engines are adapting, even as combat fighters are evolving from short-range weapons trucks into long-range sensor and attack aircraft with a suite of kinetic and non-kinetic armaments.

If, say, a directed energy weapon is on board, the engine may need a way to modulate the bleed-air now used to pressurise the cockpit. That compressed air flow could instead be diverted momentarily to power a laser or a next-generation jammer.

Or the same engine could be reconfigurable in flight, by opening a third stream of airflow when rapid acceleration is not needed, to save fuel and extend range. That same extra stream of cool bypass air could also pull double-duty as a handy place to dump all the new heat generated by those high-power jammers and laser weapons, rather than allow the exhaust to betray the aircraft’s thermal signature by venting it directly offboard.

As the US military looks to field a new bomber, a sixth-generation fighter and improve the Lockheed Martin F-35 over the next 15 years, that highly flexible, endlessly adaptable propulsion concept is P&W’s vision for the next wave of military engines that could be introduced in the next decade.

The vessel for such new engine technology could take several shapes. P&W has previously revealed a concept engine in the 10,000lb (45kN)-thrust bracket called the PW9000, which combines the engine core of the highly-efficient PW1000G geared turbofan with the low-pressure spool of the F135 engine that powers the F-35. The F135 itself is a candidate as a mid-life upgrade in the 2025 timeframe. P&W is also developing new concepts for a sixth-generation fighter engine to power the aircraft that will replace the Lockheed F-22 and Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after 2030.

“One of the key issues you see and the reason why [adaptive technology] is so valuable in a military aircraft is the mission is tremendously variable. You fly high-altitude, you fly low-altitude. You fly fast, you fly slow. Now we’re seeing more and more things where I want to take power off the engine so that I can drive electronic warfare, or I can drive other kinds of directed energy capabilities,” says Jimmy Kenyon, P&W’s director of advanced programmes and technology. “And all these things are transient in nature and I need to have engine or propulsion capability that can do that. The more adaptive I can make my propulsion system, the better off I am.”

Elements of that vision have been known since 2006, when the US Air Force unveiled the adaptive versatile engine technology (ADVENT) programme. The public focus of that activity was always about the insertion of a variable third stream to increase fuel efficiency by 25% and combat radius of a retrofitted F-35 by 30%.

In recent interviews, however, P&W officials described a broader vision for incorporating adaptive technology – first in military aircraft engines, and later perhaps in other applications, such as supersonic business jets and commercial airliners.

The vision extends beyond an adaptive bypass ratio for the main propulsion system. It also includes inserting adaptive technology into the engine core, raising the possibility of modulating the pressure ratio in flight. P&W officials decline to confirm plans to develop a compressor with a variable pressure ratio, but it is clear that the company is thinking broadly about adaptive technology.

P&W’s public embrace of adaptable engine architectures comes slightly later than its competitors. In 2007, the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) awarded ADVENT contracts to GE Aviation and Rolls-Royce, allowing P&W to continue focusing on developing the F135. The AFRL later selected GE to develop the first ADVENT engine core demonstrator, which last year completed 60h of testing over a four-month period.

Although GE garnered the AFRL’s early contracts, P&W was selected along with it to compete for the adaptive engine technology demonstrator (AETD) programme; a follow-on to ADVENT to develop a production-representative fighter engine core. The next step is to develop a full-scale engine under the adaptive engine transition programme (AETP).

Since January, the AFRL has awarded GE and P&W indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts worth up to $325 million. The awards are not specifically earmarked for AETP, and the competitors decline to clarify what the work scope of the contracts include. But the awards were made under the versatile affordable advanced turbine engines (VAATE) programme, which includes the ADVENT, AETD and AETP efforts.

On 15 May, the AFRL also awarded separate contracts worth $105 million to both companies to achieve a preliminary design review and an adaptive engine research design compatibility review.

Inserting a third stream of airflow has been the focus of each of the development programmes so far, but it might only be the beginning. Two years ago, P&W filed a patent application for an engine design featuring an adaptive bypass ratio and an adaptive compression ratio. Neither GE or P&W has so far been willing to comment about any development work underway with the USAF on adaptive compression technology. But P&W acknowledges that the scope of its development projects go far beyond adapting only bypass flows.

“AETD is really about adapting the low-spool,” says Kenyon, referring to the shaft connecting the fan and low-pressure compressor to the low-pressure turbine. “But what happens if I can make the core adaptive? We are looking at ways to do that. We are looking at ways we can take different air streams, whether it's bleed air or cooling air, and we can adapt that and we can modulate it so we can get more cooling when we need it and less cooling when we don’t need it. Looking at the different ways we can make engine architectures adaptive opens up whole new worlds.”

That new approach has forced P&W executives to also adapt some of their public views. Only three years ago, company president Paul Adams, who was then senior vice-president of operations and engineering, categorically dismissed the value of ceramic matrix composites (CMC) in aircraft engines. "Right now I don't see a path forward for large-scale integration of CMCs,” he said in 2012.

That position has changed as turbine inlet temperatures for next-generation engine concepts have climbed to 2,700˚F (1,480˚C), or 300˚F hotter than state-of-the-art engines today. Unlike GE Aviation, which has embraced CMCs in high-temperature applications for commercial and military engines, P&W had shown no public interest in the materials. In recent comments, however, company executives have been clear that CMCs will play a key role in future engine technology.

“For CMCs you need a fibre, coatings, the matrix. We have what we believe are clear pathways to doing matrix consolidation and matrices that are capable of 2,700˚F and maybe even beyond,” says Frank Preli, P&W’s chief engineer of materials.

As new materials and cooling systems allow core engine temperatures to rise, the next generation of military engines should be more and more fuel efficient. Although both GE and P&W are now committed to introducing CMCs in current and future engines, they are taking slightly different paths. GE’s commercial engines feature CMCs in non-rotating static components, such as a turbine shroud and combustor liners. GE also has tested CMC-based rotating parts in an F414 fighter engine demonstrator and considered manufacturing a CMC turbine blade for the GE9X commercial turbofan.

For P&W, however, CMCs will be reserved solely for applications in rotating parts.

“We’re not convinced that CMCs are the best material selection for a static part,” Preli says. “There’s a couple of issues with CMCs beyond the cost and manufacturability and that’s their thermal conductivity. Thermal conductivity is relatively low. In a non-rotating part you can take advantage of that very high thermal conductivity [of other materials] and actually get a part that is much more effective, with less cooling air that would be required for CMC.”
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by SaiK »

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/NASA747
what is Pluto shadow chasing?
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

^

I don't know if this is relevent. ( 30th activity )
Based on these observations scientists have two opportunities to correct the path of spacecraft.. 1st on 30th June and 2nd and final chance on 4th July.
? http://sssalvi.blogspot.com/2015/06/new ... osest.html ?'

Btw. .. Where. is it mentioned " Pluto Chasing? "
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Aditya G »

Beauty. We should strive to achieve similar capability in P-8I, IL-38s and C-130J

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqaDTEI ... &index=176



French Navy ATL2 MPA Fires GBU-12 Paveway II Laser-Guided Bomb - Marine Nationale
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by TSJones »

^^^^^those type of a/c are easy to shoot down inhotly contested areas.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by SaiK »

meanwhile at NASA, as always doing the right thing ahead
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/from- ... technology
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Singha »

TSJones wrote:^^^^^those type of a/c are easy to shoot down inhotly contested areas.
idea might be a AC130 or B1 type capability to loiter around over terrorist infested areas and drop munitions on targets of opportunity. the atlantique will have a lot of on-station time vs a couple of rafales. I am sure AASM can be dropped as well.

africa is going to be in blood soaked mode from nigeria to kenya soon. people are putting the platforms and units in place for the long war ahead against agile enemies spread over a vast area. american africa command is already in that mode and has the platforms.

50-100 mil muslims around the world strongly approve of ISIS and even if 10% of them are willing to emigrate thats a 'nation' of 5-10 million about the size of greece + those already onsite. more will join the banner as their borders spread.

france will likely ask to buy some euro model global hawks soon. and redeploy their cougar based GMTI radar soln onto a fixed wing long endurance platform.

borders are passe in africa and middle east. every warlord and jihadi has his own idea of the border.

yesterday british police could not arrest a man walking slowly around london ISIS flag draped around him and a child on his shoulder, as merely waving a enemy flag is not a crime. the gauntlet has been thrown.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

The french apparently are thinking about having the AASM cleared on the C-130..Of course the AC-130 also has the strike role and it is a platform that is most likely going to get a laser fairly soon...
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Singha »

holy warriors marching through the streets of london some carrying IS banner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ro05Qzr09c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXotSF4rdT4
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Philip »

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... er-4617173
Russian Helicopters to renew production of Mi-14 helicopter
7 July 2015
Mi-14P

Russian Helicopters is set to renew the production of its amphibious Mi-14 helicopter.

Russian Helicopters said that the company is now planning to upgrade the amphibious helicopter with the latest technologies and re-start production.

Developed by the Mil Moscow Helicopter Plant, the helicopter was produced by Kazan Helicopters from 1973 until production of the aircraft was halted in 1986.

Based on the multirole Mi-8T helicopter, the Mi-14 features hermetically sealed boat bottoms, enabling it to land on water.

Russian Helicopters stated that the aircraft will be able to perform a range of search and rescue operations for the emergency services, as well as the navy.

Currently, these helicopters are in service with the Polish Naval Aviation, while it was previously commercially operated in Bulgaria, Cuba, East Germany, Ethiopia, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.

Featuring floats for stability, the Mi-14s also received enhanced capabilities to make it ready for marine use.

"Based on the multirole Mi-8T helicopter, the Mi-14 features hermetically sealed boat bottoms, enabling it to land on water."

The basic version of the helicopter was the antisubmarine Mi-14PL. The firm later introduced the Mi-14BT and multirole search and rescue Mi-14PS into service.

In May, Russian Helicopters started series production on the heavy Mi-26T2 helicopter, a modernised version of the Mi-26T.

The Mi-26T2 aircraft features the latest avionics that enables it to operate during night-time and allows the operator to reduce the number of crew.

It can be used to conduct a range of construction and assembly work, and to deliver fuel in order to support the autonomous ground-based refuelling of a range of aircraft and other vehicles.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Austin »

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

shiv wrote:In fact you could not see the goalpost and it was never where you thought it was. One thing that I started with is that the SDBs are a set of puny bombs that were developed for the teeny bomb bays of F-22 and F-35 and it would be unwise for India to go down that route, or worse - buy the damn things. i have not veered from that and will not veer from that no mater how much you fluff up your posts.
With all due respect, what you said that the SDB weapons were the main incoming weapons then perhaps TIN protection would suffice. That was what kicked off the discussion. The question about India acquiring SDB's was never being debated, and you seem to have brought India's capability to develop such weapons into the discussion much much later after you saw material that contradicted what you claimed...

This was your first post on the matter that started off the discussion (There was no post of mine referencing the SDB on the thread prior to this) -
shiv wrote: F-35 can take out max two such shelters from the two bombs it carries. Or maybe not even one considering that puniness is the order of the day - with 125 kg slim bombs. Maybe a day will come when tin roof shed is fine.
By the way, here is another set of different angles and still images from the Arch-Shelter (Concrete) A-7 destruction test performed as part of the Small Diameter Bomb I OPEVAL (operational Evaluation) -

https://youtu.be/xbKE0paQYuk?t=114

Here's more on the range and altitude from AIAA -

The Boeing Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) successfully completed flight testing in May. In one test at Eglin AFB, the SDB flew more than 55 mi. from 30,000 ft in altitude to hit within 34 in. of its planned impact point, validating its range capability. At White Sands Missile Range, an SDB flew 35 mi. and was subjected to GPS jamming. Employing antijam GPS-aided inertial navigation, the SDB maintained its intended flight path and hit within 7 ft of the target, demonstrating successful rejection of the jam- ming interference.

shiv wrote:The goalpost remains exactly where it was so no need to make sour grapes out of snake oil.
Unless you somehow managed to forget what you originally wrote, the discussion started when you completely ignored the capability and missions such weapons are supposed to perform, and posted it in the quoted portion above regarding the TIN protection. That is what started the discussion. India's procurement of SDB"s (where did anyone ever mention that?) or the development of similar munitions came in much much later as the goal post shifted from " These small bombs cant do any damage to air shelters" to " India does not yet have the capability to get such systems and needs better guidance, targeting and what not. The claim that anyone was saying or advocating India acquire the SDB was pulled out of thin air, as India doesn't operate a platform that is cleared for it.
shiv wrote:Then there would have been no SDBs to fit into teeny bomb bays.
And what about the Spice 250? Which Stealth fighter is it cleared for?? NONE..It is only cleared for non-stealth fighters and there are no plans to clear it on a stealth fighter. It has been exported, and that export customer has procured it for non-stealth fighters. It was developed by an F-15 and F-16 operator for its F-16 and F-15 fleets. I know kind of tough to digest, but a fact! and its not like the IDF is completely bonkers and doesn't know how to conduct an air to ground campaign..The are arguably the leaders in many domains especially when it comes to multi-spectral weapons..But you have/had a counter to that. Despite it being a 250 pound weapon, with a range dead smack in the middle of the SDBI and SDBII you claim the Spice 250 is not a similar weapon :wink: .



Aero India 2015: Rafael pushes Spice 250 in India, confirms overseas contract

A Rafael official has confirmed that the Spice 250 lightweight standoff glide bomb has been purchased by an international customer.
Speaking at Aero India 2015 in Bangalore, Eran Peleg, head of business development for air-to-surface weapons at the Israeli company, confirmed that a contract with a foreign country had been signed for the missile system, which was unveiled at the 2013 Paris Airshow. He declined to provide further details.
Spice 250 is the latest member of a family of glide weapons that includes the original Spice 2000 and the Spice 1000 first shown in 2005. Rafael's development of the 250 kg version - of which 80-90 kg is the warhead - was in large part based on its work on the earlier weapons and Israeli Air Force (IAF) combat experience.
The Spice 250 has been certified to equip Israeli F-15 and F-16 combat aircraft, and Peleg suggested that the foreign buyer may operate one of these platforms. On these and similar sized aircraft it is mounted upside down on a Smart Quad Rack (SQR), an arrangement intended to simplify integration. If mounted on light attack aircraft it would be fixed directly on the aircraft's store stations.
At Aero India it was shown alongside a model of a Dassault Mirage 2000, something that Peleg refused to be drawn on.Israel has previously supplied India with IAI Griffin laser guided bomb kits believed to be fitted to Indian Air Force (IAF) Mirage 2000Hs. It is also believed to have provided the IAF with a hitherto unknown variant of the Popeye powered standoff missile system, codenamed Crystal Maze, which was tested, and it is assumed integrated, on the Mirage 2000H.
IHS Jane's Weapons: Air Launched suggests that the Crystal Maze "is a derivative of the reduced weight Popeye 2 (Have Lite)" but also notes that "Rafael refuses to acknowledge the Crystal Maze designation". It adds, "However, Israel's 2006 declaration to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms Sales, covering weapons transfers in 2005, lists the delivery of two Crystal Maze missiles to India."
The Spice 250 has capabilities not offered by either of these systems, not least its relatively small size comparable to the Crystal Maze missile, while offering a similar range at a reduced cost. It is also able to hit targets at sea - something that Rafael officials explained to Indian Chief of Navy Staff Admiral Robin Dhowan at Aero India on 18 February.
Peleg said the Spice 250's scene-matching algorithms - one of the key technologies it employs for land targets - were irrelevant for maritime targets, but this made it easier. "At sea, everything looks the same except the target," he explained.


Image

and this

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php ... hters.html

Why is the IAF/IDF bothering with this non-sense of a weapon as per your analysis?? Much like the rest of the world they see an inherent benefit in magazine depth, not to completely do away with the S1000 and 2000 but to complement it just as the SDBI/II complements the JDAM and larger weapons. Each F-15 I can lob more than 2 dozen of these while staying 70-100 km outside the target area...Thats the utility!!

Also Sweden and SAAB have integrated the SDBI onto the Gripen...

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 23:26, edited 4 times in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by TSJones »

he's not going to acknowledge your facts. it's political to him. his aim is for India to do all it can with what it has and to expedite the process.

he feels that America is so technologically enhanced culturally so-to-speak, that it foolish for India to adopt that mind set because he sees potential paralysis as a result.

he seeks restorative and rehabilitative prescribed remedies that will ameliorate immediately the patient's symptoms.

please accept my apologies for talking about you in the third person, dear physician.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:The Litening does not deliver any munitions accurate or inaccurate. It is only a targeting pod. It is the guidance kit of the bomb that matters. The bigger the miss the less effective smaller munitions will be. The Litening pod by itself will not cause a bomb to hit. But in less than ideal targeting conditions a near miss will still be effective with a larger bombs.
You've managed to dodge the question entirely.

Let me rephrase and put it in the simplest terms I can - what stops a Su-30MKI equipped with a Litening G4 from delivering an SDB with a CEP of 1 metre?

(No satellite. No JSTARS. No drones. No AWACS.)
The only time India has used LGBs in anger was an occasion when a large bomb was needed rather than punyones.
Yes, there was a time when we couldn't afford to equip the bulk of our forces with even the bare basics - infantry with BPJs, tanks with NVGs/TIs and strike jets with LGBs. So what? That wasn't because the forces were entirely staffed with Luddites.
Viv S wrote:Also, in light of your 'limited weapons bay' argument, perhaps you would care to explain why the Rafale is being integrated with the AASM-125, the Eurofighter with the (Brimstone-based) SPEAR III, the Gripen C with the SDB I, and the F-15E, Super Hornet, F-16 & Gripen E with the SDB II. That's seven different fighter types, none of which have internal weapons bays.
Correct. Any of these aircraft can carry more of almost any bomb than the F-35 or F-22. The SDB need not have existed if it was not for the puny bomb bays of the F-22 and F-35. That puny bomb exists only because of these two aircraft and is now being promoted like its the best thing after Apple pie or whatever it is Americans think is best
You've dodged the question yet again.

If a 125kg/250lb weapon is only suitable for the F-22 & F-35 (and presumably the AMCA) type useless fighters, why is it being integrated on seven different aircraft spanning a wide range of weight classes?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

You've dodged the question yet again.

If a 125kg/250lb weapon is only suitable for the F-22 & F-35 (and presumably the AMCA) type useless fighters, why is it being integrated on seven different aircraft spanning a wide range of weight classes?
He did answer that.His reasoning was because if not for these types, the weapon would have been too expensive to justify a purchase for the stealth fleet :). Still doesn't explain why the heck the IDF asked for and developed a totally new weapon in the same weight class for its Eagle's and Sufas and as soon it was ready even managed to win an export customer for it, that also wanted to use it on the F-16..and also why SAAB bothered integrating the SDBI on the Gripen and Gripen NG..The partial explanation for the Rafael Spice 250 was that despite of weighing in the same as the SDBI and II, having very similar range, only a slightly smaller warhead (SDB has a larger warhead) it is no where the same class as the SDB ( I suspect the doc confused the S250 with the S1000) :roll:..Heck what do the Israelis know about executing an effective strike campaign ;)

On the other hand, the number of targets is increasing and the timeframe for engaging and killing each target is shrinking. This complexity provides the background against which the advantages of the SPICE-250 stand out.
“In the past, a fighter aircraft had to cover a long distance and eventually release two munitions which did not always hit their targets. Now we have fighter aircraft that can destroy close to 30 targets in a single pass. A formation of four F-15 fighters can carry more than 100 munitions on a mission. This changes the way air power is employed. In fact, we are breaking the paradigm regarding the effectiveness of a sorties,” says Miller.


The advantage for non-stealthy aircraft with these weapons is quite clear...You can attack protected targets from up to 100 km away, all the way only counting on a handful of aircraft actually making it to within 100 km of a particular target such as a C2 or IAD site..Minimize risk to your aircraft, conduct the strike sortie with a far smaller footprint on your logistics and support and still maintain an element of surprise. The IDF clearly sees an advantage even though the doc doesnt ;)

Image

Now since the Graph only speaks of current capability that is based on the 500 PGM (Currently the smallest bomb integrated on the B-2, with the SDB in line for integration) your graph will look considerably different in the relative short term once the Gbu-39 is integrated... Once the payload enhancement upgrades are performed on the B-2, it would be able to carry something like 200 GBU-39’s per sortie.
That is just one offensive advantage of flexibility. There is also a complication of an effective defense when your enemy possesses such asymmetrical capability. Your area denial and IAD’s need to be 100% accurate. One fighter slip can now attack more than a dozen targets or up to 8 for a stealth aircraft…Similarly if one bomber sortie slips past you it could mean up to 200 targets…For a list of targets one can just check what sort of daily target list was generated for Gulf War, or OIF or OD…There are plenty of fixed C2C, IAD, Infrastructure and other high importance targets that you can’t pick up and move around all over the countryside or hide in an urban area. At best you can do is build redundancies or impose a hefty cost of destroying those. Finally, you can use some form of air defense against a JDAM, A CWICS type system that China is fielding. Lobbing multiple SDB’s there only complicates the matter and ups the cost of protecting the target. In fact DARPA is working on something where one munition has an active seeker and all the other cheaper munitions accompanying it have is a cheap short range data link, together they swarm a particular target to overwhelm its defensive and have a cost advantage vs the protecting force. That’s also something that makes sense looking at the future, as the cost of attacking a target is raised with cheaper defenses particularly those based on directed energy.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

One of the most interesting facts about the puny SDB is as follows. By the time the F-22 was made and the F-35 was planned no one had actually planned to make bombs specifically for these planes to carry internally.

Around this time DARPA was asked to design a small diameter bomb carrying just 50 pounds of explosive. No one mentioned the F-22 or F-35 to them. They were not thinking about those aircraft at all. The design was totally independent by a team just dedicated to developing a small diameter bomb. They were concentrating on creating a kick ass weapon with 1 meter accuracy. The bomb would destroy anything for a whole meter around it. But what was so amazing was that once they had created this weapon - it was magically found to fit the small bomb bays of the F-22 and F-35 perfectly. People have been making air dropped bombs for 70 years and none of them would fit the F-22 and F-35 so well. But DARPA with no idea that the weapons would be used in the F-22 or 35 simply created this weapon so that other planes could carry large numbers of them. And then - when someone held up one of these bombs in the bay of an F-22 it was a perfect fit.

Absolutely amazing for bombs that were never ever designed for the bomb bays of F-22 and F-35. This has to be one of the marvels of modern coincidence and propaganda

There's a rumour going around that the US will give anyone who buys 1000 SDBs one AWACS, one Predator, one aerial refueller and the coordinates for 100 targets in Iraq and Tora Bora which will be valid for a period of 3 months after purchase or 100 bombs, whichever is earlier
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Here is a resource that should help stop people from pulling out accuracy data from the musharraf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a429334.pdf
This is what is needed to make the SDB accurate
4. Accuracy Support Infrastructure (ASI)
Of particular interest to this system is the fact that there has to be a system fielded in the operation area that “enhances” the GPS data. The system consists of ground-based sensors and communication equipment that
transmits and communicates corrected GPS data to the releasing aircraft or to the munition itself after release. This is currently the only way that the SDB system will be able to achieve its intended delivery accuracy. Without the ASI the accuracy is expected to be on the order of 4 meters. At the time of this report, the necessary ASI equipment is expected to cost approximately $700,000 per operating area.

Cost per kill (from the same paper)
Trial 2 demonstrated that the average cost per kill of each weapon changed to $573,529 fo
r the JSOW A, $330,000 for the JSOW C and $228,594 for the JSOW A+. Trial 3 exchanged the SDB for the JSOW A+ and produced an average cost per kill of each weapon system of $390,000 for the JSOW A, $550,000
for the JSOW C and $97,452 for the SDB. Finally, considering all four weapon systems in trial 4, the average cost per kill was the same as computed in trial 3.

Ten trucks can be destroyed for 1 million dollars, excluding the cost of aircraft, fuel, AWACS, CAP, satellites etc

For people who really want to know
At approximately 11.5m, however, we find that the relative cost-effectiveness of the JSOW A+ allows it to enter the mix as a cost-effective alternative. At larger CEPs, it takes comparatively more SDBs to destroy the same number of aim points because it contains a smaller warhead. Therefore, its cost-effectiveness starts to decline. In trial 5, this decline in cost-effectiveness becomes more pronounced until ultimately, in trial 6, the JSOW A+ is selected significantly more than the SDB as the weapon of choice.
Trial 6 used
Trial 6: 5,288 SDBs; 2,956 JSOW A; 2,742 JSOW C and 23,273 JSOW A+
Last edited by shiv on 12 Jul 2015 13:36, edited 2 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by NRao »

Feels like the Indian movie thread.

So here goes.

Lockheed Martin First to Fly Punny Bomb
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Here is a 629 page pdf
http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Portals/ ... ndices.pdf
The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters its intended target, which should minimize collateral damage. The small size of the bomb allows a single strike aircraft to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing currently available bomb units. The SDB carries approximately 38 pounds (17 kilograms) of AFX-757 high explosive,U-109.
Anyone who claims a CEP of 1 meter is bluffing
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:One of the most interesting facts about the puny SDB is as follows. By the time the F-22 was made and the F-35 was planned no one had actually planned to make bombs specifically for these planes to carry internally.

Around this time DARPA was asked to design a small diameter bomb carrying just 50 pounds of explosive. No one mentioned the F-22 or F-35 to them. They were not thinking about those aircraft at all. The design was totally independent by a team just dedicated to developing a small diameter bomb. They were concentrating on creating a kick ass weapon with 1 meter accuracy. The bomb would destroy anything for a whole meter around it. But what was so amazing was that once they had created this weapon - it was magically found to fit the small bomb bays of the F-22 and F-35 perfectly. People have been making air dropped bombs for 70 years and none of them would fit the F-22 and F-35 so well. But DARPA with no idea that the weapons would be used in the F-22 or 35 simply created this weapon so that other planes could carry large numbers of them. And then - when someone held up one of these bombs in the bay of an F-22 it was a perfect fit.
Laden with sarcasm as that is, its yet another dodge of the basic argument posed to you -

1. If a puny* 125 kg weapon is only suitable for the F-22, F-35** & AMCA, why are similar types being integrated on the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15E, F-16, Gripen?

2. Why is every munition manufacturer developing a smaller longer ranged bomb incl. Sagem, Rafael, MBDA ?

3. How do you propose to get around the range limitations of a heavy bomb?

* as opposed to the 'beefiness' of a standard LGB i.e kit-equipped 250 kg Mk82
** perhaps you're unaware that the F-22 can carry 500kg/1000lb weapons internally, while the F-35 & PAK FA can employ the 1000kg/2000lb heavy munition.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Here is a 629 page pdf
http://www.29palms.marines.mil/Portals/ ... ndices.pdf
The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of only 5-8 meters, which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within 5-8 meters its intended target, which should minimize collateral damage. The small size of the bomb allows a single strike aircraft to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing currently available bomb units. The SDB carries approximately 38 pounds (17 kilograms) of AFX-757 high explosive,U-109.
Anyone who claims a CEP of 1 meter is bluffing
Indeed. Fortunately nobody has claimed a CEP of 1 meter for the SDB I.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by NRao »

Here is a resource that should help stop people from pulling out accuracy data from the musharraf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a429334.pdf
This is what is needed to make the SDB accurate

Abstract from that PDF. The very first page of that analysis:
This MBA project investigated and analyzed the cost effectiveness of implementing the Joint Standoff Weapon A+ (JSOW A+) variant versus the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). The primary goal was to compare the “cost per kill” for each weapon system in its intended operational environment against an existing target set. The secondary goal was to determine most cost effective optimum mix of weapons that would destroy the given target set. The optimum mix was determined using either the SDB or the JSOW A+ in combination with the current family of JSOW weapons, and was calculated based upon each weapons’ cost-effectiveness. A computer model generated the cost-effectiveness of each weapon system by dividing weapon cost by weapon effectiveness. During the process of answering our research questions we discovered different scenarios identifying JSOW A+ as comparatively more, and in several scenarios comparatively less cost-effective than the SDB. The scenarios and results are subject to the assumptions and limitations defined within this report.
This project explores the different scenarios to provide the acquisition program manager with the relevant data to make informed decisions concerning the direction of their program.
This was a research paper, that used umpteen assumptions and a computer model (which by itself is OK) to arrive at a "cost"
Last edited by NRao on 12 Jul 2015 13:37, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Here is a screen grab from a book called "Death by Moderation: The U.S. Military's Quest for Useable Weapons
By David A. Koplow"
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Bll ... EP&f=false
No one needs to bluff about CEP using Satellite or EO guidance with something like Litening
Image
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

Posting again
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a429334.pdf
At approximately 11.5m, however, we find that the relative cost-effectiveness of the JSOW A+ allows it to enter the mix as a cost-effective alternative. At larger CEPs, it takes comparatively more SDBs to destroy the same number of aim points because it contains a smaller warhead.
Absolutely no need to bluff or wriggle away from the fact that smaller bombs need to be more accurate to be effective. At best it can be "less than 4 meters". All the tests conducted accounted for SDB accuracy of CEP ranging from 1.5 m to over 20 meters. So the accuracy varies with different conditions.

That accuracy, good or bad, comes at 700,000 dollar of support infrastructure per target area plus 97,000 a pop per bomb. For the US

Now let us put this on the Su 30 MKI no?
Last edited by shiv on 12 Jul 2015 13:41, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by NRao »

shiv wrote:Posting again
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a429334.pdf
At approximately 11.5m, however, we find that the relative cost-effectiveness of the JSOW A+ allows it to enter the mix as a cost-effective alternative. At larger CEPs, it takes comparatively more SDBs to destroy the same number of aim points because it contains a smaller warhead.
Absolutely no need to bluff or wriggle away from the fact that smaller bombs need to be more accurate to be effective.
The research paper is meant to provide some direction for a procurement person. It suggests that circumstantially one is better than the other - so what is wrong with that?
This project explores the different scenarios to provide the acquisition program manager with the relevant data to make informed decisions concerning the direction of their program.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: The research paper is meant to provide some direction for a procurement person. It suggests that circumstantially one is better than the other - so what is wrong with that?
This project explores the different scenarios to provide the acquisition program manager with the relevant data to make informed decisions concerning the direction of their program.
Nothing wrong. It only tells the truth so that we need not rely on blatant bluffing or wiggling away from topic of Puny SDBs
1. SDB can get 1 meter CEP with Litening alone and no GPS or other inputs when launched from Su 30
2. Smaller bombs do not need to be more accurate than larger ones
3. Let us talk about Spike instead of SDB

As regards the pathetic question on the lines of X, Y and Z use it so it must be good. Guess how many air forces used the F-104? it must have been good
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Absolutely no need to bluff or wriggle away from the fact that smaller bombs need to be more accurate to be effective. At best it can be "less than 4 meters". All the tests conducted accounted for SDB accuracy of CEP ranging from 1.5 m to over 20 meters. So the accuracy varies with different conditions.
Which laser guided weapon exactly has a CEP of 'over 20 meters'? Also, where does it say that the L-SDB/SDB II's CEP will 'at best' be less than 4 meters?
shiv wrote:Here is a screen grab from a book called "Death by Moderation: The U.S. Military's Quest for Useable Weapons
By David A. Koplow"
Which says -

The next generation of Small Diameter Bomb is likely to have a CEP of 4 meters or less, and one version will include a terminal seeker that can automatically recognize and follow its prey, suitable for attacking mobile targets.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Nothing wrong. It only tells the truth so that we need not rely on blatant bluffing or wiggling away from topic of Puny SDBs
1. SDB can get 1 meter CEP with Litening alone and no GPS or other inputs when launched from Su 30
2. Smaller bombs do not need to be more accurate than larger ones
3. Let us talk about Spike instead of SDB
- In three posts, all you've 'revealed' are the facts behind GPS guided weapons, which were never the issue in dispute.

- Larger bombs have already demonstrated CEPs low enough for air forces across the board to invest in smaller weapons capable of greater precision.
As regards the pathetic question on the lines of X, Y and Z use it so it must be good. Guess how many air forces used the F-104? it must have been good
Did you, in contrast, predict that the F-104 would be a disaster before it happened? If not, I don't see how this helps your credibility vis a vis over a dozen air forces.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by NRao »

Not followed the discussion in detail, but the following is the bottom line:
Larger bombs have already demonstrated CEPs low enough for air forces across the board to invest in smaller weapons capable of greater precision
Smaller bombs are part of the PC wars that are the rage now a days.

On costs: At Kargil India willingly paid through the nose. So, what is so astounding? It is a matter that the political wing needs to decide on - aside from middlemen and corrupt officials.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Shiv, CEP of 1 m for a GPS/INS Bomb? Are you seriously claiming someone said that? An extremely low sub 2m CEP is for the multi mode or LGB's, weapons such as the SDB II and Spice250 are designed for that accuracy. A GPS/INS munition is going to be a lot cheaper then the SDBII or Spic250 type of weapon with the disadvantage that it would have a larger CEP (This info I had posted very early on in the discussion if you bothered to read some of those links).

Here again is the DET-2 snippets from the SDB I (The GPS/INS guided version in case you again claim someone claimed it to have a CEP of 1m) -



With regards to your target data, the goal for the SDBI program was to be able to destroy a mix of 14 targets (different fusing) with 17 weapons..all the numbers I have seen for the post OPEVAL, are in the 16-18 range, well within the threshold margin that was the design goal. The ratio between what 1000 lb a rack could carry and what the same an SDB is 1 to 4..So for every 1 JDAM you can carry four SDB's...You can run the numbers. There will be some missions you won't be able to get a kill on using the SDB, but within the mission it is designed around (see the slide posted earlier once again) it was required to be able to eliminate 14 targets with 17 bombs and is around that number post OPEVAL.

The SDBI was one of the IDF's no. 1 requests as far as PGM's from the US. Of course they integrated it onto a non-stealth aircraft in the F-15. But what do they know! They saw a couple of FAKE videos and went along..BTW, in the first wave the IDF requested 3500+ Gbu-39 SDBI's..., by 2010 they had already received a significant portion of them and were well on their way of designing and operationalizing (a few years later) their own 250 pound class stand off range Precision munition in the Spice-250 which despite being the same class (a blended SDBI and II) as per you is not comparable :-? !!
Absolutely no need to bluff or wriggle away from the fact that smaller bombs need to be more accurate to be effective. At best it can be "less than 4 meters". All the tests conducted accounted for SDB accuracy of CEP ranging from 1.5 m to over 20 meters. So the accuracy varies with different conditions.
No one claimed that for the CEP, you seem to be confusing with all types of munitions between SDBI and SDBII which is a totally different weapon. Every munition will have a CEP as per the definition of CEP..That goes for every LGB (PIV as well), GPS/INS and even multi mode weapons. Thats a damn definition of the term with a 50% caveat. The JDAM with a 10M CEP will still have that same parameters and so will a 2000 pound bomb JDAM. The OPEVAL data was posted earlier in the conversation including the extreme long range kills at beyond 50 miles. The bomb has cleared OPEVAL, is ahead in certain metrics...
Around this time DARPA was asked to design a small diameter bomb carrying just 50 pounds of explosive. No one mentioned the F-22 or F-35 to them. They were not thinking about those aircraft at all. The design was totally independent by a team just dedicated to developing a small diameter bomb. They were concentrating on creating a kick ass weapon with 1 meter accuracy. The bomb would destroy anything for a whole meter around it. But what was so amazing was that once they had created this weapon - it was magically found to fit the small bomb bays of the F-22 and F-35 perfectly. People have been making air dropped bombs for 70 years and none of them would fit the F-22 and F-35 so well. But DARPA with no idea that the weapons would be used in the F-22 or 35 simply created this weapon so that other planes could carry large numbers of them. And then - when someone held up one of these bombs in the bay of an F-22 it was a perfect fit.
The MMP's were started off and on in the mid 90's and used technology that was developed earlier..the integrated technology went to advanced the Small bomb concepts, and yes internal bays were a factor in the form factor no one is denying that but they were not the enablers they were the design criteria. They embarked down that path because technology enabled to get a lethal weapon and still meet the form factor, not go in for a form factor and live with a diminished capability for the design-target set. OPEVAL proved that and snippets from it have been provided to you. Its just not the Americans that see this benefit, the Israeli as mentioned have also seen the benefits and have developed the system on their own.

The area of concern with the SDB was whether they need one weapon or two weapons. Early on OEM's had a multi-mode seeker design for one weapon that could do both fixed and moving targets and had a very low CEP, pretty much in line with what the best LGB's can achieve. That weapon would have been expensive for the production volume, so they decided to go in for the SDBI, that costs around $40,000 and is a GPS/INS guided weapon with an advanced GPS that has anti-jamming capability compared to the JDAM kit..That munition has a CEP of 5-8 m as a threshold with the objective being less than 4 meters as shown in the article quoted below, and quite a bit better than the first generation GPS..In GPS degraded environments it performs using INS where the CEP will become higher as is the case with any weapon that uses that for targeting...Following the cheaper SDBI, they developed the SDBII with a tri-mode seeker. The SDBII uses GPS/INS only for navigation and uses its tri-mode MMW, IIR and Laser seeker to actually find, discriminate and attack the target. That weapon has been designed around the best CEP requirement as most multi-mode or laser guided weapons are compared to simple and much cheaper GPS/INS bombs.

The IDF chose a slightly different path. Instead of developing 2 weapons, one cheaper for mass production the other more accurate, more expensive and specially designed for moving targets and CAS, they developed just one (original Raytheon and Boeing designs were also similar) with a dual mode seeker that can do both GPS degraded missions, and attack moving targets. Flip side, more expensive hence the IDF is buying much cheaper SDBI's for their F-15's and buying the Spice-250 for the targets that that bomb is suited for. Production and procurement volumes drove the decision to go for 2 SDB weapons as it makes sense..this is also the reason why the USAF has different GPS/INS and LGB programs instead of just one 2000, 1000 or 5000 family that is multi-spectral..that would be too high of an acquisition price given US volumes of procurement. Simply put, if the US bought just the more accurate SDBII they would have ended up spending a recurring cost of around $150-200 per round (overall production recurring, current recurring is higher because of low volume in 2014/15)...With the SDBI and SDBII plan they buy the SDBI for around a recurring flyaway of $40-50,000 and the more expensive one at 150-200..thereby optimizing inventory. The SDBI is still cleared for its mission sets and has passed OPEVAL, if you desire very high accuracy such as you may need for things like attacking moving targets or CAS, you use the more expensive load...the same way you switch between LGB's and GPS/INS kits..
SDB can get 1 meter CEP with Litening alone and no GPS or other inputs when launched from Su 30
He was talking about SDB-L not the GPS/INS guided version..Of course now you have a multi mode SDBII that cleared Milestone C a few months ago so you have an all weather capability with the family. The SDBIII will most likely be a powered version which Raytheon has been exploring for the Spear III program.

You have also managed to totally skirt the question on why the heck NON-STEALTH JET operators are going in for these weapons. Like the IDF with the Spice250 for the F-15 and F-16? Gripen Customers with the SDB? and an export customers for the SDB and the Spice-250?


-------

Anyhow, back to the basics -

The 250-pound small-diameter bomb (SDB) also will make aircraft more productive by allowing them to carry more weapons and hit more targets per sortie. The F-15E Strike Eagle, which can load a single 2,000-pound JDAM, will be able to carry four SDBs.

“We basically quadruple load-out, and we’re able to prosecute around 80 percent of the fixed targets,” said Col. Jim McClendon, program director for the direct attack joint program office at the Air Force Air Armaments Center.

To achieve its accuracy, the SDB—officially called GBU-39/B—employs an advanced technology known as wide-area differential GPS (global positioning system) support infrastructure. It also introduces new mission planning software that will enable Air Force crews to program fixed targets via computer workstations on the ground or aboard aircraft in flight. The system was tested on an F-15E at Eglin Air Force Base in the first SDB guided flight April 22. An upgraded SDB with a moving target seeker will begin development in 2006.

Boeing, the system’s prime contractor, demonstrated the technology in a series of Air Force Research Laboratory programs at Eglin from 1995 to 2000. It now leads an industry team providing the weapon, carriage system, GPS stations and other elements. “The real challenge was coming up with a system that was fieldable and could be supported in the Air Force infrastructure,” explained Dan Jaspering, SDB program manager at Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.......


The decision to develop the SDB stemmed from a requirements view by the Air Combat Command. Based on a list of 14 common hard and soft target types, ACC officials decided they needed a mix of blast-fragmentation and penetrating bomb effects. “The war fighter looked at the target set and determined, of the fixed targets, about 80 percent could be covered by the warhead SDB brings to the fight, that is, a 250-pound class weapon,” McClendon explained.

Improved energetics make the small diameter bomb an insensitive munition that is safer to store and handle. It is expected to penetrate more than 5 feet of reinforced concrete. The KDI Precision Products division of L3 Communications makes the reprogrammable electronic fuse that tailors the bomb to various targets.

The blast area, 26 feet, is considerably smaller than the 82-feet blast area of the 2,000-pound JDAM.

The JDAM, with its GPS/inertial guidance package, already betters its circular error probable (CEP) of 13 meters. The small diameter bomb with differential GPS and modest autopilot refinements promises a CEP of less than 4 meters. “Our requirement is four, but we expect to do better than that,” noted McClendon
.

The SDB carriage system, made by Sargent Fletcher Inc., uses pneumatic ejectors instead of troublesome gunpowder cartridges. It contains its own stores management software and provides a mechanism to simplify integration with different aircraft. The F-22, for example, will carry up to eight GBU-39s in its two internal weapons bays for attack missions. The B-2 could potentially deliver up to 216 SDBs in one load.


^ Read the last bold part - CEP is a function of the requirement..they are extremely careful in what data is released on CEP even in the reports it is left out. What is know it is 5-8 was a target, was most likely bettered (For the SDB I) and the real number is likely kept under the wraps. This also clears the Air-Combat-Commands thought process in seeking a weapon of this class. But the fact still remains, for extreme LGB like (or better) accuracy you need the SDBII that was in the plan all along. Unfortunately you cant have both i.e. a sub $100,000 weapon and a multi-mode seeker..so they went with a cheaper $40-50K weapon hat still had a significantly better to the JDAM CEP, and concurrently developed a more advanced SDBII with all the whizbang seeker technology that comes at a cost.

The 80% target set is not pulled out of thin air, or taken from a forum..It was developed by the highest authority in the USAF's air warfare (ACC) and they ran the numbers that showed them what could be achieved. The IDF most likely also ran their own analysis based on the target set they had been attacking and would be attacking in the future. They also developed a 250 pound class weapon. Together these are two combat forces that have the highest capability in PGM technology and also the highest operational expereince with the former having reduced its sorties from 4 digits in GW, to below 500 in OEF (per day) without impacting targets due to the advancement in PGM's.

I guess other operators that are looking into this or have already hopped on board also ran their numbers. I doubt all they did was a "GOOGLE SEARCH"...or looked around at forums...The F104 analogy is rather week and so is your overall argument. First it was "it cannot attack anything more than a tin can". When conclusive evidence was provided to you on the requirements you claimed it was FAKE, fabricated in order to sell bombs. Why not adopt the same posture for everything else? Can you show me operational requirements for some of the other weapons around the world and why they too aren't fake??You continue to ignore DT test stats and outright videos of some of the targets being destroyed by these bombs. Heck if that logic is to be applied even the Paveway IV is useless, or the 1000 lb bomb for all others can provide you is a video of it impacting a target..Like that the SDB is combat proven.

More on Developmental Testing

In less than four years, Boeing's Small Diameter Bomb has finished development testing and is now set for operational testing. A pace like that, said Boeing SDB Program Manager Dan Jaspering, is "unheard of."

The development test program included 37 test flights that put the SDB through numerous scenarios against various targets, including tanks, rocket launchers and an aircraft hidden in a reinforced bunker. The last test was a four-bomb drop Aug. 25. Through it all, the SDB missed its target aim point by a miniscule average of about 4 feet. "We're very proud of that," Jaspering said. "In a wartime situation, that's putting it in the right room, not just hitting a building."


Also, the JSOW-A through C and SDBI (-39) comparison ignores the fact that there is the SDB II (-53, because that bomb was still on the drawing board at the time the academic work was published) that while being more costly to the SDBI (Recurring $40-50K vs recurring 150-200K (Taken from SAR) ) is still cheaper than all three versions of the JSOW (made by the same company). The SDBI complements the 500 and 1000 pound JDAM and gives a 4x magazine depth. The SDBII does not replace the SDBI, it is a new category that allows more flexibility, significantly more Accuracy, and the ability to be a CAS weapon given those design features. That comes from the tri-mode seeker and that seeker is also the reason why it costs 3-4 times more than the SDBI. So the best comparison for the SDBI is the 500 and 1000 pound JDAM and not the JSOW which will be a go to weapon for the targets that require it and no more. The Charlie variant JSOW costs close to $800K, even the USN will not be using it where a JDAM will suffice. As per the ACC position provided above, based on the type of targets the US has been attacking and projects to attack the SDB can take over approximately 80% of those targets successfully. Now there may still be situations where you want to use the 1000 pound bomb but the rationale is that you can achieve that level of capability with a smaller, more accurate and more advanced weapon compared to a 13M (now probably 10m or below) CEP JDAM... Here is where you would prefer to use the 1000 or 2000 pound or not use the SO of the SDB family -

- More hardened targets that are beyond the design limits of the SDB CONOPS and performance
- Non-urban targets where you do not want the most expensive weapon for obvious reasons
- Faster bomb to target - The SDBI and II are designed around stand off ranges of up to 60-65 nautical miles from high altitudes. Being non-powered this could mean a long flight time because the profile is designed around an efficient glide to target. Sometimes it may well be better off to drop a 500 or 1000 pound..


Also, the collateral damage is no joke..When you have troops in an urban environment that need support and you have very little difference in terms of where they are vs where the enemy is you need something with a small CEP, and a precise yet smaller blast area to actually create the effect. You aren't going to be doing CAS in an urban environment with a a 2000 pound bomb unless you are prepared to absorb the risk which in this case will be fratricide..
Last edited by brar_w on 13 Jul 2015 00:02, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

More on Gbu-39 CEP and accuracy in general based on real time operational testing prior to Rate production. The Article is from JANES IDR (International Defense Review) , dated December 19/2005 and is titled A different kind of smart: weapons becoming autonomous and precise


Here's the portion about the SDB (The article covers a lot more from JDAM to improved kits)
Boeing completed SDB development testing in September 2005. In development testing, 37 SDBs were released against fixed targets. Thirty-five weapons were successful, each hitting within an average of 1.1 m from its surveyed target aim-point. Key tests included the single-pass release of four bombs against four separate targets, at a range of 37 km. The weapon demonstrated its range in May with an 88 km flight from an altitude of 30,000 feet, hitting within 85 cm of its target. In a test with effective GPS jamming in May, a bomb flew 56 km and landed within 2 m of its designated impact point, using its inertial measurement unit and onboard logic to overcome jamming.
The secret to the SDB's precision is the Accuracy Support Infrastructure (ASI), developed and supported by SRI International. Based on USAF technology programmes from the 1990s, this comprises ground stations that detect errors in GPS and transmit correction signals. ASI stations can be located up to 2,400 km apart, making it possible to cover an entire theatre from neutral or friendly territory. This improvement in accuracy is applicable to any GPS weapon with the correct receiver.
The fast-paced programme has been focused on achieving initial operating capability on the F-15E. All other USAF combat aircraft, including the F/A-22 and B-2, are considered as 'objective' platforms, but there is no firm timescale for integration on any of them. The 48th, the first operational unit, is also the first F-15E wing to operate with the Lockheed Martin Sniper advanced targeting pod, which is able to use its laser ranging function, together with a terrain database and the fighter's own GPS system, to acquire precise GPS co-ordinates for JDAMs or SDBs.
The SDB uses the MBDA-developed DiamondBack wing section and HR Textron tail actuators. Russian-invented trellis-type tail surfaces, evaluated early in the programme, have been replaced by straight tails, which are as effective and cost less. Rockwell Collins provides the GPS receiver, which includes a Harris Selective-Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), and Honeywell provides the inertial measurement unit (IMU). Later in this decade, the SDB is expected to be delivered with a Deeply Integrated Guidance and Navigation Unit (DIGNU), incorporating a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial reference source and a GPS receiver, which is expected to lower costs while resisting jamming three to four times better than today's integrated systems.
Cobham plc's Sargent-Fletcher unit provides the four-round BRU-61/A launcher, incorporating Ultra's HiPPAG (High-Pressure, Pure-Air Generator) to provide compressed air for its pneumatic ejector. Initially, the F-15E will be cleared to carry three launchers and 12 bombs. The fully loaded launcher weighs 664 kg with four of the 130 kg bombs on board, and is designed for internal carriage in the F/A-22, JSF and Joint Unmanned Combat Air System. For the F/A-22, the launcher and weapon are intended to be cleared for supersonic launch, and representative weapons have been tested from a Royal Australian Air Force F-111 under a co-operative test programme.
Moving over to the Spice family the article states -
In terms of accuracy, Rafael says that "we advertise 3 m circular error probable (CEP) and achieve 2 m". Captive flights have demonstrated that the system can acquire targets in the presence of low cloud, even with a target location error as large as 500 m, because the scene-matching system corrects for TLE and inertial errors.
The Spice - 250 uses a more advanced seeker targeting than the Spice Kit on larger bombs (its just integrated into the 250 vs kitted on the older bombs) so a decade old multi-spectral dual mode setup allowed a 2m CEP to be achieved. The SDB II is a tri-mode seeker the builds on the capability developed over the last decade. It should substantially better that..Sub 5 feet should be a reasonable estimate even though there have been claims of 1 m CEP and I have also seen a 7 feet claim as the design threshold some years back. You need that 2m accuracy to actually get a moving target..

IHS Janes reported in August 2011, that the SDB II Tri-Mode Seeker has exceeded performance requirements!!

You also have to be very very careful with threshold and objective requirements and what the actual capability is with some of these weapons once they are in service, have improvements performed to them and to the way they are deployed. In a 2002 article titled The falling price of precision Janes states -
The JDAM concept has worked better than expected. The initial specification called for a CEP of 13m, but tests have demonstrated an average CEP of 4.9m. This has had a number of effects on the program. Development of a high-precision version of JDAM has been affected, because the user will require fewer weapons (harder targets can be attacked with the basic weapon) and the Global Positioning System/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS) can place the seeker closer to the target. For the user, the small CEP has also meant it has been more worthwhile to work on reducing target location error (TLE), which accounts for the greater part of miss distances in operational use, than to reduce weapon CEP itself.
Reducing TLE depends on the targeting approach being used. The aircraft itself can provide target data to JDAM with the aid of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) or a laser range-finder. The B-2, with a GPS-aided targeting system (GATS) which combines GPS with two SAR shots, remains one of the most accurate JDAM platforms.
So be careful about CEP's. CEP's also change with the threat..A degraded environment may see that 4+ Avg. CEP go closer to 10m or even beyond..similarly bat targeting may add to that. That is why the new GPS/INS is important since it can perform in degraded environments and in the case of the SDB I (Gbu-39) has shown to achieve a 2m accuracy with jamming. Additionally a multi-mode seeker completely does away with the GPS reliance with the drawback of added cost...Pure laser guided weapons already claim a 1m CEP.(WGU-58/B SAL)..there is no reason why a tri-mode weapon that uses laser targeting as an option cannot match that and VIV was referring to the SDB-L that would be cheaper to the SDBII and equally as accurate but without the flexibility that the SDBII affords. He wasn't referring the Gbu-39 when talking about extremely small CEP performance. The LGB does not need much over and above integration and a high quality targeting pod. The Litening G4 is as good as they come!!

The SDBII has already demonstrated the ability to score a direct hit on a moving tank target...

Small Diameter Bomb II Completes Live Fire Test Destroying T-72 Tank
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by TSJones »

not only that it will save pilots' lives in contested areas by releasing from far away.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

^ Or give non-steathy aircraft the ability to still stay in the fight and lob a lot of munition from up to 60 nautical miles away. Another point to note is CAS for which the SDBII is the main driver. In Afghanistan, the best CAS platforms were the bomber fleets (here B-1 came to light as a CAS platform). This was because the Strike fighters lacked TOS, once they got TOS through IFR they quickly expended their Magazines because once you send them out with large 2000 pound bombs, you basically limit the type of CAS they can perform...Want close in bombs forget the 2000 pounder, has to be the 1000 or preferably the 500 LGB for precision. A dual purpose load of SDB or SDBII allows these aircraft to quickly switch between SEAD, strike against soft to semi-hardened targets and CAS..And still have a lot of magazine depth and extend TOS through IFR. No longer will your TOS be weapons limited but it will be tanker limited. Again it won't do away with the need for larger bombs but it will provide a very good solution to plenty of problems a good 80% strike sorties can use these weapons as per the Air Combat Command which analyzes these sort of things...For those nations that do not have bombers and that want flexibility with a limited strike fleet, these weapons are force-multipliers.

And as per SJha's tweet (posted in another thread), it appears India is working on an SDB like weapon. What a great waste of national resources ;)..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:NR ,never happened! :rotfl:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/06/opini ... round.html
Not Enough Cruise Missiles to Go Around?
By Lawrence J. Korb

Published: April 6, 1999

As the war against Yugoslavia entered its second week, there were ominous reports that the United States was running short of cruise missiles, the weapon of choice in this war as well as the recent attacks against Iraq and Osama bin Laden.


Some have cited this supposed shortage as evidence that the Clinton Administration has so seriously underfinanced defense that our military is not capable even of waging a brief air campaign against a third-rate power. To buttress their argument, these critics note that there is no money in the current defense budget for new cruise missiles.

These assertions are misleading. If there is a missile shortage, it is far from a crisis, and President Clinton deserves no more blame than his predecessors, George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

For one thing, the United States has the potential of running short only of air-launched cruise missiles. The Pentagon said that as of April 1, after firing 50 missiles in the opening week of the air war, the Air Force was down to 100 of these conventionally armed cruise missiles, which are launched from B-52's. However, the Pentagon still had more than 2,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are launched from Navy ships and have been the mainstay of the attacks on Kosovo.

In addition, this is hardly a Clinton-era problem. There is a potential shortage of the air-launched missiles because this generation of cruise missiles went out of production in 1986 and the next generation, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, is still in development. Production is scheduled to begin next year.

The main reason for the gap between these two missile programs is that in 1995 the Department of Defense was forced to cancel its initial replacement, the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile, because of cost and performance problems. The tri-service missiles would have cost $2 million each, while 2,000 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles will cost about $400,000 each. The Navy's new Tomahawk missile, meanwhile, will not be ready until 2003.

Much of this planning and spending for cruise missiles predates the Clinton Presidency. And planning is an inexact science: the Clinton Administration has used far more cruise missiles than anyone could have anticipated more than a decade ago, when production of the missiles was stopped by the Reagan Administration.

At the start of the Persian Gulf war, the Air Force had about 300 conventional air-launched cruise missiles in its inventory. Only 35 of these missiles were fired during the Persian Gulf war in 1991, but 92 were fired during the far shorter campaign against Iraq in December 1998.

The same types of numbers are seen in the use of Tomahawk missiles. During the six-week air campaign against Iraq in 1991, the Navy fired 288 Tomahawks. In last December's four-day operation, it fired 320.

The Air Force recognized this new phenomenon and before the war against Yugoslavia and requested money to convert nuclear-tipped cruise missiles into conventional ones, a request that is still pending. The Clinton Administration should have come to that realization as well -- several years ago, since it takes about 30 months to restart a cruise missile production line.

The bottom line is that the amount the Clinton Administration spends on defense has little to do with the problem. In his six years in office, the President has kept defense spending at about 90 percent of what this country spent on average from the end of Vietnam to the end of the cold war. The problem is in how the money is distributed.

Like its predecessors, including the Reagan White House, this Administration spends too much on weapon systems and not enough on ammunition. For example, according to the Secretary of the Air Force, that service has spent $44 billion over the past decade upgrading its bomber fleet, but only $1.3 billion on precision-guided munitions for the fleet. About $500 billion is being spent to develop three new tactical aircraft; meanwhile we are counting missiles carefully for the aircraft we already have.

For more than a decade, analysts have urged the Department of Defense to buy more conventional cruise missiles. David Ochmanek of the Rand Corporation summed up the frustration perfectly last week. The good news, he said, is that the current situation vindicates these analysts' position. The bad news is that for all those years they weren't able to convince anyone.

Lawrence J. Korb, the director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration.
Shiv some details of US "dumb bomb experience".
The air war also carried some practical lessons. One was offensive. Before the war, the Navy had concentrated on providing its F/A-18 Hornet attack aircraft with bomb fire control systems so good that they could regularly place bombs within a 30-foot circle. On that basis it drastically limited purchases of smart bombs. The theory was that a bomber could not return to a carrier with a full bomb load aboard; it would have to jettison any unused bombs into the sea. That meant one thing for cheap “dumb” bombs, and quite another for a pricey laser-guided weapon. During the war, it became clear that even the accuracy afforded by the computer fire control system could not suffice. For example, when attacking bridges, it was vital to hit the precise point on the roadway over a supporting member of the bridge structure. Otherwise the roadway might well be holed, but the bridge would not fall. It took a laser designator to do this job.  With the war over, the Navy began buying laser-guided bombs in much greater quantities, and it is now modifying GPS-guided bombs with terminal seekers for even better accuracy. In so doing, it is accepting that aircraft will carry many fewer bombs, few enough so that they can land back on their carriers with their loads.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... -gulf-war/
@ Phillip, the Surface and Sub-Surface commander led USN has a well known (and to some degree understandable) syndrome where it will not buy a TAC_AIR capability until and unless the USAF buys it in large numbers, shares with it its technical evaluation, and then takes it and proves it in war. They'll keep on resisting it until they are literally forced to buy it. They were opposed to PGMs for a long time until actual combat data struck them in the face. What was to be the leading US Multi-Role strike aircraft in the Hornet (the entire point of selecting the design apart from it having two engines) was quietly overtaken by the higher block viper in this very capability because it had more PGMs qualified. This until they caught up over time post DS. The same thing happened with cruise missiles. The USN did not have faith in the JASSM or the JASSM-ER only to turn around and buy the latter as a long range anti ship missile years later, while developing the JSOW-ER that is essentially a JASSM type without stealth.

In Desert storm approximately 17,000 PGMs were used and 210,000+ Dumb munitions..By OIF the percentage of PGM's of the total munition was above 65% with nearly 20,000 PGM's being used out vs only 9000 odd dumb bombs. By 2010 the US (AF, N and MC) had enough JDAM (GPS) in its inventory to conduct the entire Gulf War with it..However the current state is even better as the USAF has shrunk its strike fighter squadrons from the cold war era and the per jet, per sortie availability of PGM's is significantly higher..
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Austin »

Rumours are floating that LRS-B design would be supersonic then subsonic that would be interesting

NG proposal ?

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/next_ge ... rike_3.jpg

Lockheed

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=15758
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1244
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

In other news- Missiles 'fall off' RAF fighter jet as it lands at Akrotiri base in Cyprus

Apparently the returning Tornado lost two Brimstone missiles just as it was coming in to land.
Locked