Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

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
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

My concern is that everyone is talking about the bomb and not the ancillary infrastructure needed for pinpoint accuracy. That is blindness.

I have an old book (1980s) that shows a beautiful colour image of an Paveway equipped dumb bomb just smashing through the windshield of a truck. So the tech itself is hardly new. India used LGBs back in 1999. I have videos from the 80s showing KAB 500s, dropped from MiG 21s hitting pinpoint targets (a hut sized building).

So what is new?
1. Tracking and targeting:
The number of platforms that can be used for identification and illumination or marking of targets along with networking means that a drone can be circling overhead, watching a single truck, transmitting the data in real time to an AWACS that then passes targeting data on to a delivery aircraft. The actual manner in which the munition is guided might vary from continuous illlumination -say with laser (or IR tracking) if it is a real time moving target. Another targeting method would be a very accurate GPS signal, requiring satellites and accuracy down to below meter level (for static targets). Another mechanism for targeting could be extremely accurate mapping of the surrounding terrain combined with GPS data so that know targets can be hit even if they are camouflaged and even if there is no real time illumination. These are the assets that are the most difficult to develop and maintain. Drones need bases for refuelling, repair and maintenance. AWACS need to be refuelled. You need CAPs nearby to make sure the AWACS is protected. You need satellite for GPS and for communication and maybe a few LEO sats for realtime tracking when they are overhead. The US has the capability right now.

2.Increased glide range:
This combines better designed dumb bombs along that can work at standoff distances. This is not difficult

3. :rotfl: "Small Diameter Puny Bombs" These have come up recently. The main reason is that they had to fit more bombs into the restricted space of the F-35. But smaller bombs need better accuracy - so the complexity of targeting mechanism with drones, AWACS and GPS has increased.(as I have mentioned above). In other words if you have an F-35 with 8 puny bombs you need to have the entire jing-bang lot in targeting inftastructure of satellites, AWACS and drones for it to be most effective. The less you have by way of targeting and tracking infrastructure, the less your effectiveness will be with punies.

Now if I was Russia or China and had to face the US in a war what would I do. the first thing I would do is to blind the US by taking out its satellites and getting their AWACS. That would make their targeting ability less effective. the US would do the same if it was faced with an adversary as well equipped as itself. Of course I am now exposing myself to a lecture on what the US will do to defeat Russia and China. It goes to show how we think Americaan

The reason all these punies in F-35s are so deadly is that Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya cannot take out US satellites or its control and comm infrastructure. But that has to be the first target in war. India does not currently have all the systems that the US has in place to make puny bombs in F-35s effective.

We don't have the satellites, AWACS or drones or the ability to keep them flying. But suppose we do develop all that in say 20 years time. Does anybody think that Pakistan or China will sit back and get their asses whupped by India the same way as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya got their asses whupped by the US? Within a few weeks of war our satellites will be blinded and soosai attacks will prevent our AWACS from doing anything useful. What happens to our AMCA with its punies at that time? Only our Jags and our MKIs will be working as usual with dumbo bombs

When America and Americans talk of how they fight their wars we get so enchanted that we stop thinking and I can see that happening yet again. I ask that people remove the fog of America from their minds and think Indian
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Why did Iraq or the Taliban not shoot down American AWACS and blind American satellites? Why did the morons sit back and have everything destroyed by extremely accurate bombs while the Americans crowed that they were not causing collateral damage? Was the reason for this Islam or something else?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

As an aside - it seems ironic and funny.

In world war I planes were fat and ugly and men in them used to throw puny grenades or 10 pound bombs. That is all they could carry

In the 60s and 70s they made aircraft slim like darts and sang paeans to the aerodynamic cigar shape "area rule" that reduced drag. But they had to hang big fat unstealthy bombs off the wings back then

Now they are making planes fat and ugly because they have to carry weapons internally. And the weapons inside those bays have to be slim like darts and light.

But if anyone had said in 1970 that planes would, in future, become fat and ugly and carry small bombs, maybe someone would have said "You are 50 years out of date" That is an amusing example of blindness
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: There is "small" and then there is miniaturization.

The prior came about because of improvements in sensors, which improved accuracy. So the size of the warhead decreased, which allowed the siE of the "bomb" to decrease. It also allowed them to add other sensors and gave them other options - glide, etc, yet making them "small".

What the F-35, etc has forced is miniaturization: compressing, if you will, resulting in "small" too, but the circumstances are different. So, expect smaller missiles, bombs, etc for the JSF.
Agreed.

But there are a few meta-points that are an extrapolation of this:
1. "Small" may be for whatever reason but it is small and light and can be fitted on to any existing platform
2. The ability to fit this on to any platform is a great business opportunity for anyone who is a developer and manufacturer of such miniature bombs
3. Because it is such a great business opportunity it will be (and is) being offered as a solution to practically anything and everything
4. Stealth aircraft can only carry small loads of big bombs and bigger loads of small bombs. Promoting small bombs is part of the process of promoting stealthy aircraft. The latter are also a business opportunity.
5. Those who forego the choice of continuing to develop and carry bigger bombs while falling for the publicity and rhetoric that "The future is in small, accurate bombs" may well suffer in future for having done that. Falling for someone else's business rhetoric is not the best way to an independent and secure future for India

We must sift right from wrong. Sales talk from truth.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by NRao »

Sorry, I deleted that post (since I was on my cell) and here is the latest:
"Small Diameter Puny Bombs" These have come up recently. The main reason is that they had to fit more bombs into the restricted space of the F-35.
There is "small" and then there is "miniaturization".

The "small' essentially came about due to the improvements in sensors - which enabled them to reduce the size of the warhead. So, better sensors -> smaller warhead -> smaller bomb.

Vs. "miniaturization" which was dictated by the size of the bay of a plane that was in stealth mode. Here the challenge was to retain the envelope of the larger item (missile/bomb), but reduce its size by reducing as many things as possible.
But smaller bombs need better accuracy
The other way around: accuracy increased (due to better sensors), *therefore* the bombs became smaller.
so the complexity of targeting mechanism with drones, AWACS and GPS has increased.(as I have mentioned above)
* Bombs themselves can locate, track and target - loitering. I think India has one (a missile?)
* No longer "drones", "AWACS", etc, etc, etc. It is "data" and therefore "networks". Why bother with source of info/data? The idea is I have a job to do, I need this kind of data, get it for me.
* When I had stated that the "5th Gen" is designed around a "network" Philip had laughed. But that is what it is. Try getting rid of that network in a F-35


IF there needs to be serious discussion (on some of these newer techs), I suggest we discard all old thinking - they, more than likely, will not apply.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by NRao »

"Small" may be for whatever reason but it is small and light and can be fitted on to any existing platform
While all platforms will benefit from the "size", a platform in stealth mode will NEED a miniaturized asset. The same platform in a non-stealth mode can do with anything else.
2. The ability to fit this on to any platform is a great business opportunity for anyone who is a developer and manufacturer of such miniature bombs
In the stealth mode, yes. In a non-stealth mode a JSF is as good as a F-15 (or whatever).
3. Because it is such a great business opportunity it will be (and is) being offered as a solution to practically anything and everything
Well, I do not think all AFs view "stealth" the same - they cannot.

The US needs stealth in very heavy hostile envs. China/Russia will use their "stealth" planes in very friendly confines. And, I bet they are designed with that in mind. Which is why say the PAK-FA is not a JSF - and that is not meant to be a knock. Why would Russia invest in techs they may never use? IF a PAK-FA never strays more than 100-300 Kms from the Russian border and thus can rely on Russian ground resources, why pour funds into making a plane totally independent - like the JSF?

Same for the AMCA. Why bother with techs that the IAF will not need?
4. Stealth aircraft can only carry small loads of big bombs and bigger loads of small bombs. Promoting small bombs is part of the process of promoting stealthy aircraft. The latter are also a business opportunity.
Without compromising anything.
5. Those who forego the choice of continuing to develop and carry bigger bombs while falling for the publicity and rhetoric that "The future is in small, accurate bombs" may well suffer in future for having done that. Falling for someone else's business rhetoric is not the best way to an independent and secure future for India
I just do not see India following - I do not even see it in the case of the Armata.

India will define what she wants and perhaps lean on outside help to achieve her technical goals. But be totally dependent - intentionally? I do not see that.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote:
India will define what she wants and perhaps lean on outside help to achieve her technical goals. But be totally dependent - intentionally? I do not see that.
Yes. I agree. This is what I believe will come to pass.

But when I find that public information-space, and frequently this forum, are chock full of what America is doing and why this is the best, there will always be Indians who will not know or understand the reasons why India must strike out on its own and will ask why India is not following America. India not following the US lead is reason enough to say Indians are wrong, and India striking out on its own is reason enough to say why the US is ahead.

Here is a simple hypothetical example of what typically happens: The US in 2015, shows in a series of videos and glossy books how effective SDBs are in destroying soft and hard targets. But the US capability exists now in 2015. It is true now for the US and many people will think that this will be the future. But they need to think again.

By 2020 some countries (China, Russia) will have developed defences that render SDBs and stealth less effective. By 2025 those defences will be sold to many countries who need protection against US style Stealth/SDB attacks.

But India will get its AMCA by 2030 by which time all this big "Hurrah for SDB!" screams about SDBs being very effective for everything will be well past its sell by date. Even the US is likely to have moved on to something else - perhaps EM guns. By 2035 The F-35s will have lived out half their useful lives in the US and the production lines will either be sold to someone or the US will close them down as the advantages they offer are neutralized and new tech comes on board. We need to anticipate this possibility before jumping into US models of warfighting that become obsolete for the US by the time we get there.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:My concern is that everyone is talking about the bomb and not the ancillary infrastructure needed for pinpoint accuracy. That is blindness.
No its not. You're quite simply mistaken here. The SDB doesn't require any special targeting magic. The SDB I can be employed with just a set of GPS coordinates keyed in. The L-SDB & SDB II can be cued by the Litening pod, which means you can integrate it with the MiG-27UPG if you have to.
2.Increased glide range:
This combines better designed dumb bombs along that can work at standoff distances. This is not difficult
It is not easy. The only strap-on kit that can propel a dumb bomb to stand-off ranges is the very expensive rocket-boosted AASM. And that too takes a 250kg bomb only to about 50 km. The average LGB has a range of less than 20 km (SDB I: 90 km, SDB II: 110 km).
3. "Small Diameter Puny Bombs" These have come up recently. The main reason is that they had to fit more bombs into the restricted space of the F-35. But smaller bombs need better accuracy - so the complexity of targeting mechanism with drones, AWACS and GPS has increased.(as I have mentioned above). In other words if you have an F-35 with 8 puny bombs you need to have the entire jing-bang lot in targeting inftastructure of satellites, AWACS and drones for it to be most effective. The less you have by way of targeting and tracking infrastructure, the less your effectiveness will be with punies.
This paragraph is almost entirely wrong.

- The SDB I pre-dates the F-35. Its currently operational on the F-22. By the end of the year, it'll also be operational on the Gripen C/D.
- A smaller bomb doesn't require more accurate targeting. Most LDPs can cue a weapon to metre-level CEP. What it requires is better guidance, and the munition's design & software achieves just that.
- As for the effect of a 125 kg bomb, it'll take out an volatile target like an FOL or ammo dump as well as anything else. Same for a radar or SAM installation. Or any moving vehicle, armoured or otherwise. It'll crater a runway pretty well. It'll punch through 5 feet of concrete taking out most moderately hardened targets. That's covers 90% of air-to-ground missions.
- For all remaining targets, you'll need to use an LACM since LGBs will continue to be range limited.
When America and Americans talk of how they fight their wars we get so enchanted that we stop thinking and I can see that happening yet again. I ask that people remove the fog of America from their minds and think Indian
Unfortunately, the basic premise of your argument is flawed viz. smaller munitions needing extremely accurate levels of targeting.
Last edited by Viv S on 11 Jul 2015 08:21, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: * Bombs themselves can locate, track and target - loitering. I think India has one (a missile?)
* No longer "drones", "AWACS", etc, etc, etc. It is "data" and therefore "networks". Why bother with source of info/data? The idea is I have a job to do, I need this kind of data, get it for me.
Either we have to develop the capacity to get the data or have the data given to us for free. In past wars, Pakistan has had data about India given to it for free.

It is the ability that others have to gather and use data that should be our first target in war
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: Unfortunately, the basic premise of your argument is flawed viz. smaller munitions needing extremely accurate levels of targeting.
Sorry. That is what I call balderdash being posted to extend an unsupportable argument. I remain in disagreement.
he SDB I pre-dates the F-35. Its currently operational on the F-22
LOL another puny bomb bay that can't carry anything half decent, designed for a great air dominance fighter with a secondary role as puny bomb thrower.

I would love to see links to "SDB" that pre-date stealth aircraft with tiny bomb bays. The fact the F-22 uses it is merely because it is easier to make puny bombs than get the F-35 into service
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Sorry. That is what I call balderdash being posted to extend an unsupportable argument. I remain in disagreement.
This is not a philosophical debate, its a technical one. What is your evidence for the SDB requiring a greater level of targeting accuracy than is delivered by the Litening G4?
LOL another puny bomb bay that can't carry anything half decent, designed for a great air dominance fighter with a secondary role as puny bomb thrower.

I would love to see links to "SDB" that pre-date stealth aircraft with tiny bomb bays. The fact the F-22 uses it is merely because it is easier to make puny bombs than get the F-35 into service
Other aircraft with 'puny bomb bays' include the PAK FA, J-20 & J-31. No one's holding the AMCA to a different standard.

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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Pratyush »

Shiv, just because you say that it is balderdash, doesn't make it so. It seems that you have suddenly lapsed back in time to ww2 for reasons best known to yourself.

The question is why.

Are you trying to say that the technologies associated with RMA can be defeated. Or are you trying to say that all the attention given to so called smart bombs is a waste of time and money.

Are you suggesting that the IAF will be well served by ignoring the implications of these developments. In favour of countermeasures sold by the Russians and the PRC.

While you are at it try to look at the target set for different types of munitions and then decide how much use a particular munition has in a specific situation.

Leaving aside the recon end for a while. Which is a different argument all together.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Austin »

The Russian have also their own series of SBD type both GLONASS Guided and Autonomous and Laser Guided bombs plus Glide Kit for Su and Mig series

Comprehensive List of Guided Bomb http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-GBU.html
KAB-250 http://www.missiles.ru/kab-250.htm
OEM List http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/518/

Glide Bomb Kit displayed at MAKS http://nevskii-bastion.ru/modul-a-maks-2013/
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote:What is your evidence for the SDB requiring a greater level of targeting accuracy than is delivered by the Litening G4?


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. The only time India has used LGBs in anger was an occasion when a large bomb was needed rather than punyones.

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

Here is Carlo Kopp. Take it FWIW :D
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html
The SDB I was conceived during the 1990s to provide an internally carried weapon which would allow the F-22A Raptor, and later JSF, to attack multiple targets. The design is sized so that the F-22 can carry eight rounds in its main weapon bays.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Pratyush wrote:Shiv, just because you say that it is balderdash, doesn't make it so. It seems that you have suddenly lapsed back in time to ww2 for reasons best known to yourself.

The question is why.
I am not . The above statement is simply ignorant rhetoric, and allows me to waste time and space by replying with an equally unhelpful reply.
Pratyush wrote:Are you trying to say that the technologies associated with RMA can be defeated. Or are you trying to say that all the attention given to so called smart bombs is a waste of time and money.

Are you suggesting that the IAF will be well served by ignoring the implications of these developments. In favour of countermeasures sold by the Russians and the PRC.

While you are at it try to look at the target set for different types of munitions and then decide how much use a particular munition has in a specific situation.

Leaving aside the recon end for a while. Which is a different argument all together.
You have not been reading my posts or answering my questions. :D Hey that's an opportunity to repeat myself even if you continue to be yourself others might read and understand

India already has Litening pods and LGBs. Our LGBs currently have a guidance kit that homes in on laser illumination. That means that the target has to be illuminated continuously for about 30-40 seconds for the bomb to hit. In cloudy weather or in the presence of smoke these bombs are less likely to be accurate

Our Russian KABs home in on a visual TV image provided visibility is good.

The SDBs are a different beast. Forget the size it is the seeker I am talking about The basic ones home in on a GPS signal. India does not have that luxury. A near miss with a small bomb will be less effective than a near miss with a larger one. The more advanced SDBs have an active seeker that uses MMW or IR. But even for such a great seeker there has to be someone or something to designate the target first. That deisgnation can only occur if there is something that is looking at the target and identifying it as one. It could be a drone; it could be an AWACS; it could be a soldier on the ground; it could be satellite imagery with accurate GPS coordinates.

So what we are looking at with this is not just the bomb or the seeker but the support infrastructure. And I repeat this for the 3rd time in the thread. For SDBs to be more effective than Litening type guidance in poor visibility and bad weather you need support infrastructure with
1. Satellites giving a GPS signal
2. Drones - with bases for drones, satellites and AWACS to communicate with the drones
3. AWACS to designate targets, relay drone information, perhaps actually control a munition released from an aircraft
4. Refuellers to keep AWACS in the vicinity of the target zone as essential support
6. Combat air patrol to protect AWACS and other aircraft that are coming and going out of the battl zone
7. Bases or aircraft carriers to house all of these
8 Complete integration or "sensor fusion" so everyone knows what the other guy can see.

The biggest joke is that if we have all of the above we do not need a puny small diameter bomb. We can manage perfectly well with 125 kg or 250 kg bombs. The SDB exists ONLY because of F-35 and F-22 :lol: It was created for their puny bomb bays and is being used by other aircraft because it is available in numbers.

But since we do not have all of the above and have only Litening pods and we also do not have restricton of the puny bomb bays of F-22 and F-35, we are free to use larger bombs with guidance kits and Litening pods and those can be effective after a near miss compared to the puny explosive content of the SDB which requires all that supporting infrastructure for accuracy.

And if the link quoted below is right, the SDB has only 25 kg of explosive. That is what a soosai bomber may carry
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ns/sdb.htm
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

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
The F-35 can carry 32 SDB's if need be and the F-22A at least 16. The point that I have repeatedly tried to make in the AMCA comparison as well, is that with internal payload they go into non-permissive environment..in that environment your non-internal-bay-equiped legacy fighters find it extremely tough to operate and in the future may be totally denied by the opponent/enemy (hence the need for the F-22, F-35, PAKFA, AMCA, F-X, F4 etc). Therefore the hypothetical capability to carry larger number of large bombs for the legacy jets is immaterial..since they cannot deploy into those conditions with those jets..In areas where these can comfortably deploy using heavy external configurations, the stealth jets can also deploy with internal+external stores...If you need to bomb a target that has its Air Defense degraded or destroyed, you will not send in an AMCA with just a 2.5 ton internal payload, you will send it full up with a max payload for that mission and that means hanging bombs on the wings..

The SDB family was conceived for many reasons (not just one fighter type)...It was conceived first and foremost because of the MMI's being undertaken to improve weapon accuracy, increase penetration power, improve guidance and get CEP to around 5m with GPS etc..One of the reason was internal carriage for fighters, UCAV's and bombers...But that was not the only reason..that did dictate the size and shape but not the capability in itself..They didn't develop a 250 pounder despite of it being inferior..They developed a 250 Pounder because they could make it capable enough so that it could take over many mission sets from 500 and 1000 pound bombs....Basically as the JDAM improvement was happening some very smart people were busy developing and maturing technology that allowed them to package the accuracy (and improve on it by around 50%) and yet retain the lethality in a much smaller form factor using less explosive...Those were driven by technology development programs at DARPA, AFRL and other similar institutions..Once that technology was mature, they launched a Milestone A in a formal developmental program that was dubbed the Small Diameter Bomb..You need the foresight to see where your combat aircraft are going 20-30 years out into the future and what you need to develop to make them even more lethal. India is at a similar position now..The AMCA if all goes well will come into the service (or should ) around 2030-2035 timeframe...The developers need to have the foresight to develop these technologies NOW..Not claim that we don't have XYZ so we can never do something like this...That may be true (or somewhat true) NOW, but it need not be true 20 years from now..

BTW, Same applies to the excellent Rafael Spice 250, and the Brimstone and the upcoming Spear III for the UK..The UK too had the SPEAR program for over a decade...

Even before the F-35, the gold standard of tactical strike using stealth in non-permissive environments was the capability to send in 2 x 2000 pound bomb payloads...One of the capability required for the F-35 was to match that (F-117)...Each and every design you have seen be it the A2A F-22, PAKFA, Indian AMCA, Korean F-X and the turkish stealth fighters will hover around that sweet spot of 2 1000 pound class weapons as the largest glide bomb option...This is because most have realized and seen the writing on the wall in terms of the trend in miniaturizing munitions and how that is enabling high capacity through smaller more accurate and still lethal bombs..Fortunately, none of those folks have the same thought process as you..This would apply and be carried over to UCAV's such as UCLASS, Neuron, Taranis and anything that comes out of Russia, China etc...Thats going to be the sweet spot for glide bombs because both the SDB and SPICE have proven the trend in actual combat and numerous testing and weapons ranges.

The discussion started because you claimed the SDB class of weapons would not require hardened shelters as simply "tin" protection would suffice. Open source material, and any sort of knowledge on these weapons basically proves your point totally wrong. The SDB has been tested to penetrate up to 6 feet of steel reinforced concrete as your KOPP article among others (global security as well) show. The video from its various tests have been shown to you, and shows quite well the mission sets where it can be used and that does include taking out semi-hardened aircraft shelters as the A-7 under an arch structure shows (Video provided, photo of the actual test provided on USAF website and open for all to see.). Once these points were laid out, you shifted the discussion to India's employment of such weapons how this was not feasible as the technology capability was not there. While this was never the point of the discussion, most of us carried on since it was a legitimate point to discuss. My point on that portion is still the same - Hard investments in PNT have been made by India and now what is required is to develop the munitions themselves and give a lead time of 15-20 years this is very very doable (AMCA timeline). China and through it most likely Pakistan, will have these sort of weapons much earlier....because like the US, UK, Israel, Sweden etc they see the value...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr9gqZ9Nv18

To your point about SDB Class requiring better targeting..It requires seekers and PNT to be advanced and in control of the operator..If PNT control is of no concern then you have off the self solutions in the SDB itself or the Spice 250. If PNT control is a concern, then you have had huge success in setting up your own constellation and what you need is to develop capable guidance and seekers for such weapons. That could be an aspirational goal for the next decade. Work with Rafael on technology, heck Brahmos is getting INS tech from France, whats stopping India from acquiring a dual mode seeker from Rafael?? Or working with them to develop one for the future? The hardest part is to get the sats up and have them function reliably so that you could base at least your navigation (weapon) bit on them if not all out targeting..That part has been done. And as Karan has shown the base for a larger infrastructure in PGM's is being nicely laid. These aren't 30 year aspirational goals, PGM's have not and will not in the future conform to those lengthy development timelines because a lot of this is being driven by capability in the commercial domain..and this is why even the US expects most to catch up to it in the PGM domain thanks to commercial technology (hence the third offset requirement)...As far as guiding a SDBII type weapon, it and the Spice uses internal mapping and memory with a cue from a SAR map / target or L4/5 discrimination...You discriminate, find, fix, pass the target onto the SDBII and it goes autonomous, it even discriminates between the right and wrong target itself using the MMW...So the magic isn't with the AWACS or JSTARS or a new IR pod, its with the tri-mode seeker..the deployment and CONOPS use the same thing such as a SAR map, Sniper XR or L4 pods, Link 16 data links etc etc

Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 16:15, edited 2 times in total.
Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2128
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Picklu »

Shiv, it need not be an either or situation.

US, being the traditional first mover energizer bunny, built things sequentially. India, being the usual late latif, does not really need to and can develop items parallelly.

IRNSS is already partially active and being completed rapidly. G3OM is already in place. They can enhance the accuracy of pinaka and reduce the cost for Nag/CLGM/desi MANPATs against static targets(my dreams).

They can also enhance the lathality of dumb bombs by making them more accurate. Them big mothers are required and no need to retire them.

However, there is no reason not to simultaneously develop another tool for our need in the form of desi SDB that an unstealthy tejas itself can carry in multiple of tens by using suitably designed external bomb racks. I am sure there will be ample use cases for them as well.

Both are required, the same components will make both more accurate and lethal. If the IRNSS are gone and/or G3OM is blocked by some way, both will loose some amount of lethality but still be used in varying degree of capability.

9 kg of explosive is all that is required in Nag and the total weight is 42 kg onlee.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Let me use the line that is used so often to compare smart bombs with dumb bombs to say why I think "SDB" is such a laughable bottle of snake oil. It goes something like this:

In WW2 they needed 300 bombs to get one target
In Vietnam it was 30 bombs for one target
With PGMs it is one bomb one target

This is all true. No one can deny this.

So now it is said - a squadron of planes was required in WW2 to drop 300 bombs on one target
In Vietnam a flight of 4 planes was needed
Now - just one plane can take out that target with one puny SDB.

From this follows the logic that a plane with SDBs can get 8 targets and a plane with 32 SDBs can get 32 targets. And, presumably a B-52 with 300 SDBs can get 300 targets.

This is so impressive.

What is hidden from this story is everything that is so ridiculous about it. the loiter time of most combat aircraft near the limits of their range would hardly allow anything more than 30-45 minutes on station.

Remember that the plane carrying 32 SDBs is not stealthy. It also has to fly at very high altitude for the SDBs to achieve their range. And because SDBs can glide 60-90 km the plane can stay 60-90 km away from its 32 targets. Now which plane is going get 32 targets within 90 km of where it is flying? At high altitude the plane will be vulnerable to interception and loitering around for targeting data for 32 targets will only give interceptors time to shoot it down. OK so we say that it has escorts. Those escorts and the attack plane will need refuelling to loiter. So there is a refueller in the area. this sort of situation sounds just like US attacking Iraq or Afghanistan. No country will a half decent air force will allow this.

So carrying 32 SDBs or 300 is a useless exercise 8 SDBs is probably OK if SDBs were not so puny.

What I find so funny about the whole situation is that stealthy aircraft were designed to go deep into enemy airspace without detection. But now they are saying that despite going in so deep into enemy territory the plane needs SDBs "so that it can remain at a safe distance" from the target zone? wtf? the plane is already over enemy territory no? What difference does it make if it is 30 km or 90 km from the target? Any half assed LGB can go 30 km? Why design an SDB?

Ultimately it is the seeker and bomb guidance that matters. If those are great then you can attach them to any bomb, big or small. Why pretend that there is something holy about puny bombs? Any unstealthy aircraft should be able to carry 6 or 8 smart but big bombs and do a lot more damage even if there is a near miss. I don't for one minute believe the story that the US is concerned about collateral damage. They are not. they say they are only for internal political consumption
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

From this follows the logic that a plane with SDBs can get 8 targets and a plane with 32 SDBs can get 32 targets. And, presumably a B-52 with 300 SDBs can get 300 targets.

This is so impressive.

What is hidden from this story is everything that is so ridiculous about it. the loiter time of most combat aircraft near the limits of their range would hardly allow anything more than 30-45 minutes on station.
What it means is that an F-15E, or an F-35A carrying a large load of 20 or 32 SDBI's can potentially target 20 or 32 targets if need be depending upon the mission needs. These smaller munitions, especially the SDB II are accurate enough for CAS, in fact CAS was the main driver of the SDB II and gives it an accuracy many times that of the SDB I..There are situations where you can extend TOS through IFR but need to go back because you don't have a payload anymore..An SDBII load out allows you to divert SEAD aircraft for CAS or CAS aircraft for SEAD/DEAD because the same weapon is capable of doing both..You can't use a 1000 pounder GPS bomb for 99% of CAS missions and you sure as hell can't use a 2000 pound GPS bomb for CAS...Other targets can really use the extended carriage...As the B-2 video shows, a single B-2 sortie can do a heck of a lot of damage and even in Odyssey dawn, B-2's were destroying up to 45 targets per sortie...

Airfield destruction and soft infrastructure destruction is another mission set where a four ship with 8 bombs each in stealth mode can do a heck of a lot of damage..Similarly if you are taking out something in non-stealth mode, a couple of F-15E's will have the same target destruction capacity (for those sub-set of targets that a 1000 pounded can be substituted with the SDB) of a single OD B-2 sortie..


It also has to fly at very high altitude for the SDBs to achieve their range.
I wouldn't call 30-40,000 feet very high..Most aircraft that use a EO/IR target and stealth will be flying above 30,000 feet any ways. The F-35's operational altitude for strike is between 30,000 and 35,000 feet...
What I find so funny about the whole situation is that stealthy aircraft were designed to go deep into enemy airspace without detection. But now they are saying that despite going in so deep into enemy territory the plane needs SDBs "so that it can remain at a safe distance" from the target zone? wtf? the plane is already over enemy territory no? What difference does it make if it is 30 km or 90 km from the target? Any half assed LGB can go 30 km? Why design an SDB?
Because all stealth aircraft have attributes that make them hard to detect, and extremely hard to get a firing solution on but not completely invisible to a radar or a firing solution. A safe stand off distance provides you the ability to enter a threat zone, lob bombs from a safe distance and still maintain that survivaiblity factor because you are on the fringe of that detection distance..The ranges of these glide weapons were so made to exploit this very feature. In the future as stealth aircraft become easier to detect with sensors (older stealth aircraft anyways) you will have to provide greater organic protection, or simply use bombs or munitions that have even greater stand off ranges (things like putting a Turbojet engine on the back of these glide munitions like the Spear III and a potential SDB III, or a JSOW-ER for example)..Stealth SHRINKS SAM envelopes, not completely obliterate them..An IAD that can reach out and touch a non stealthy fighter at 300KM may only be effective at targeting a stealth fighter at say 50 km...Thats the shrinking affect low-observability mixed in with organic electronic warfare protection provides you..It doesn't provide you with the ability to fly right over the radar and missile site and lob a few dumb bombs towards it...
Ultimately it is the seeker and bomb guidance that matters. If those are great then you can attach them to any bomb, big or small. Why pretend that there is something holy about puny bombs?
Of course you can do that and you already have LGB's that are sub 1 m CEP's by now...But the point is that if you can take out the need for your 1000 glide bombs in some of the missions, and replace that with as lethal SDB's you gain huge tactical flexibility in terms of how you can execute a strike mission. You are correct, in the relative near term a 2000 pound bomb will be developed by AFRL that will have the bunker-busting and tunnel trashing ability of the 5000 pound glide bomb..Technology is allowing you to get more bang with a smaller bomb..whether that is 5000 pounders being replaced by 2000 pounders, or 2000 pounders being replaced by more accurate 1000 pound bombs or 1000 pounds being replaced by 250 pounders...Simply put, if your 1000 JDAM is good enough for a target, and you can develop a 250 that does that same for 80% of those 1000 pound bomb missions - you will see a tactical utility in that. It doesn't matter if you can make a 1000 lb glide bomb with 5m CEP on GPS..If one with 10M CEP is an overkill, one with 5 m CEP will still be an overkill...Thats the point of replacing some mission sets with the SDB..You'll still need the 1000 pound for a lot many other mission sets were the SDB is not your ideal choice of munition..No one is replacing the JDAM with the SDB, the latter complements the former.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

Picklu wrote: 9 kg of explosive is all that is required in Nag and the total weight is 42 kg onlee.
This is an excellent example.

Small munitions work only with direct hits. That is why accuracy is vital. But if your accuracy is good there is no need to reduce bomb sizes to ridiculously low levels unless there is a compelling reason to make a bomb really really small. For the US that compelling reason is the teensy weensy bomb bay of the F 22 and the F 35.

Once we have the means to achieve Nag like accuracy (say MMW seeker, our own GPS and IR seeker) them we do not need to make SDBs. A 120 kg bomb would do fine. The definition "Small Diameter Bomb" is a specific requirement of a Small Diameter Bomb Bay.

There is no need to have a separate class of SDBs and claim that Jaguar can carry 96 of them and Su 30 128 of them . You cannot use up 96 in one sortie. Better to carry eight or ten 250 kg bombs with good guidance kits.

It is the "Small Diameter Puny" that gets my goat. It is a restricted weapon for a restricted aircraft.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote:
I wouldn't call 30-40,000 feet very high..Most aircraft that use a EO/IR target and stealth will be flying above 30,000 feet any ways. The F-35's operational altitude for strike is between 30,000 and 35,000 feet...
.
That is high enough for radars to see them from way way out

The entire idea of "stealth aircraft" has been shortchanged by the fact that those aircraft cannot carry much, so they developed the SDB for them and now it is being said that the same SDB is great to be carried in large numbers by an unstealthy aircraft carrying dozens of underwing munitions flying at a high enough altitude to show up clearly on radar.

This essentially puts the stealthy aircraft into a niche role

What is so ridiculous about it is that the SDBs were developed for the stealth aircraft and now those same stealth aircraft are being relegated to a secondary role because standard unstealthy aircraft can carry much much more at a brazen unstealthy mode and altitude. So what are those stealth aircraft there for at all? What earthly use is the F-35 other than what F-117s were used in the past? Just some SEAD at the beginning of a conflict. And why have SDBs at all? No F-15 is going to use up 32 bombs in one sortie. 10 or 12 large 500 pounders with the same seeker and similar guidance would be much more sensible and lethal
Last edited by shiv on 11 Jul 2015 17:15, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

But if your accuracy is good there is no need to reduce bomb sizes to ridiculously low levels unless there is a compelling reason to make a bomb really really small. For the US that compelling reason is the teensy weensy bomb bay of the F 22 and the F 35.
Not only the F-22/F35 but also the PAKFA, F-X, Most likely AMCA, Turkish Stealth fighter, and pretty much every other stealth fighter that will be designed of the next decade (including the Japanese aircraft). Barring the F-35, you will most likely not have a tactical stealth strike fighter with a 2 x 2000 pound glide bomb capacity. And not just tactical fighters but also UCAV's like the UCLASS, Neuron, Taranis, Russian projects, Chinese projects and the Indian stealth UCAV. Do you think these tactical UCAV's would be able to carry anything more than a couple of 2000 pound bombs? If any at all??

What this basically means that anyone in the world at the moment that is developing stealth in a tactical sense be it fighter or tactical UCAV's, will end up sizing their bomb bays around the 1000 or perhaps in some minority cases around the 2000 pound glide bomb..The rest of the optimization would be around things like a2a missiles, ARM's and anti shipping missiles etc....So in a nut-shell all these designers, operators, air-forces and Navy's around the world will be seeking at most a 2 x large bomb capacity with multi-target capability coming from smaller SDB like munitions - something that they all unanimously disagree with you on in terms of what is optimal..There is good reason for it anyhow, even before the current crop of tactical strike vehicles (fighters and UCAV's) the previous generation of stealth in a tactical strike sense maxed out at 2 x 2000 pound payload as the absolute maximum. This generation can at best (F35 for now) match that and as I said there is a good reason because it is the most optimum bay configuration for tactical multi-role aircraft and they are aided by the fact that SDB like weapons have been already designed and can do a heck of a lot of damage. Sure they may not satisfy you in particular, but they need to satisfy the operators that ultimately use them.
That is high enough for radars to see them from way way out
That is the altitude that stealth aircraft currently operate in and would operate in the future (It is the design altitude for them)..Not down below..That defeats the purpose..Stealth aircraft get their survivability from a combination of Low Observability, situational awareness and organic electronic protection..The latter two get negated if they are flying low to the ground..not to mention it opens them up to attack from the IR domain using next generation MANPADS...The F-22 cruises at 40+ K feet and supersonic over enemy territory, the F-35's strike missions are designed around a 30,000-35,000 feet altitude because that is where the sensors such as the EOTS work best...The operators that develop requirements for stealth aircraft choose these altitudes for them to operate in..The F-117 of yesteryears, the B-2 of the current years and the UCLASS, Neuron and Taranis will all operate at that altitude or higher.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 17:17, edited 1 time in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by Austin »

Nag also tried to hit the most vulnerable area of tank which is the top of the tank , hence it needs low tandem explosive.

When it comes to general purpose bomb with wide range of targets which may or many not be protected, small is beautiful may not not always be true , also the targets would be approached from different angles and the distance covered very large so success would vary depending on the CEP and other factors with could be bad weather or active jamming by enemy.

Say if they miss target by say 10 meter with 50 kg explosive and the same distance with 150 kg explosive the result would vary
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

When it comes to general purpose bomb with wide range of targets which may or many not be protected, small is beautiful may not not always be true , also the targets would be approached from different angles and the distance covered very large so success would vary depending on the CEP and other factors with could be bad weather or active jamming by enemy.
That may be true for pure GPS/INS weapon not for a tri mode or a dual mode weapon that is looking to match or better the already achieved 1m CEP of LGB's and is designed as an all weather moving target striker..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote:
But if your accuracy is good there is no need to reduce bomb sizes to ridiculously low levels unless there is a compelling reason to make a bomb really really small. For the US that compelling reason is the teensy weensy bomb bay of the F 22 and the F 35.
Not only the F-22/F35 but also the PAKFA, F-X, Most likely AMCA, .
The bolded bit is what worries me great deal and I will not repeat my objections.

It is called "American hawa". Once the US pushes something as desirable many people in the world stop thinking for themselves as the "Fog of America" clouds their minds and they imagine that they will be fighting American style wars with American style equipment. My entire series of posts is based on this one great worry I have - that India will buy, not make puny bombs with seekers for AMCA and then Indians will say "Su 30 can carry 200 of them".
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

The bolded bit is what worries me great deal and I will not repeat my objections
I don't think it worries the developers, especially those that use some hard analysis to arrive to a conclusion.
It is called "American hawa". Once the US pushes something as desirable many people in the world stop thinking for themselves as the "Fog of America" clouds their minds and they imagine that they will be fighting American style wars with American style equipment.
So everyone that designs there stealth fighter to essentially similar bay configuration (some more designed around bombs, while others around missions but none designed for a capacity to carry more than a maximum of 2 x 2000 pound bombs if not 1000 pound bombs) is doing so not because it is optimum, but because the US is doing it? Could it be a possibility, that like the US, these nations also ran their analysis, trade studies and worked out various configuration and came to a similar conclusion on what is an optimum internal payload for a stealth strike fighter? or a tactical UCAV? Or those that develop these requirements for various air-forces around the world have a picture in front of them on what path the PGM evolution is taking over the next 50-60 years - you know the time-frame that these stealth fighters are likely to be operational for..There may be a possibility that a lot of smart folks around the world have studied the trends in PGM development, and have seen PGM deployment that first occurred on a scale in the Gulf War, Kosovo, and the conflicts that followed.
My entire series of posts is based on this one great worry I have - that India will buy, not make puny bombs with seekers for AMCA and then Indians will say "Su 30 can carry 200 of them"
ideally then as per your logic India should make a multi-role strike fighter with the capacity to carry the entire Su-30MKI payload internally. Good luck !!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote:ideally then as per your logic India should make a multi-role strike fighter with the capacity to carry the entire Su-30MKI payload internally. Good luck !!
Not sure where you pulled this conclusion from. I have made no such suggestion

If India made a medium heavy multirole fighter that carries stuff externally I would be happy. If the AMCA does that I would be happy. No need for SDBs

The US has proved that Stealthy fighters can't carry much internally. I am sure every country knows that. But what should be avoided is making this redundant nonsense called SDB. Nonstealthy fighters can carry a wide variety of heavy stuff. Where is the need for a stealthy fighter and a half dozen punies for them to carry?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

If India made a medium heavy multirole fighter that carries stuff externally I would be happy. If the AMCA does that I would be happy. No need for SDBs

The US has proved that Stealthy fighters can't carry much internally. I am sure every country knows that. But what should be avoided is making this redundant nonsense called SDB. Nonstealthy fighters can carry a wide variety of heavy stuff. Where is the need for a stealthy fighter and a half dozen punies for them to carry?
The problem is that you are the only one that considers them redundant..Unfortunately those around the world that have the capability, that understand it, that have access to it in terms of seeing how it performs and where the technology is enabling them to seek such capability completely disagree with you.

The Israeli air force is equipping its strike aircraft with Rafael’s Spice 250 glide bomb, which the company says offers a stand-off range of up to 54nm (100km) by using its deployable wings.

Lockheed Martin F-16s equipped with the manufacturer’s smart quad rack will be able to carry four of the weapons per pylon, allowing each aircraft to engage multiple targets. Maximum load-out on the Boeing F-15 is 28 bombs.

The Spice 250 is provided as a complete system, unlike previous members of the same guided weapons family – which came in kit form for integration with Mk 83 454kg (1,000lb) and Mk 84 908kg “dumb” bombs.

Israel’s air force has used the 908kg version of Spice in combat, and the weapon has a range of over 32nm. The kit adapted for Mk 83 bombs enables a range of over 54nm, with an upgrade effort intended to extend this further.

Rafael says the Spice 250 can be loaded with up to 100 optional targets in a given area. A datalink allows for the impact point to be updated post-release, enabling the weapon to engage time-sensitive and moving ground targets.


Even here you are perhaps the only one that doesn't see the utility, for you its either SDB or JDAM not both..Whereas for the developers and operators its about what missions can be safely handed off to the SDB..Not all targets will be but a substantial set of targets will..Those with access to the largest data on PGM's from developing to actually deploying them are doing this and early adopters are following a similar path. Expect most to go down this road. Of course that wouldnt stop them (including the US) from making the 1000 pound JDAM, 500 pound JDAM or the 2000 pound JDAM more accurate, just as the SDBII and future SDBIII will also add capability with time.

Image

^ Each one of that target was earlier attacked with either a 500 pound bomb, or a 1000 pound bomb, and each one of that target type has been tested with the SDB during its OPEVAL where it came out well and actually exceeded some primary design targets (including penetration btw)...The decision to further enhance it, and procure thousands of them was based on both the technology and how the end product performed in its evaluation. Others that have access to it have also come to a similar configuration. Air-forces that do not have a stealth fleet or internal bay equipped figthers are also considering such class of weapons...Again this video shows you exactly what it can do against some of the targets mentioned above...of course this by no means is the synopsis of the entire OEPVAL that lasted for months...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr9gqZ9Nv18


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

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.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote: The problem is that you are the only one that considers them redundant..Unfortunately those around the world that have the capability, that understand it, that have access to it in terms of seeing how it performs and where the technology is enabling them to seek such capability completely disagree with you.
I cannot dispute this. But other air forces have to start using SDBs in war before we know what they think. I will wait and see. In the meantime "Spice" is not SDB. It even weighs more than the SDB. And I cannot see any reference to Spice being loaded up on the F-22 or F 35.

None of what I have been saying applies to the Spice which you have now introduced into this discussion. My interest and scorn is for the punies called SDB. Not Spice.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

But other air forces have to start using SDBs in war before we know what they think.
Of course because you can't really test things such as the penetrating power, or the overall destruction vs type of target (vehicle, tank, radar, tower etc) without actually going to war??
In the meantime "Spice" is not SDB. It even weighs more than the SDB.
SPICE 250 is a similar class as the SDBII. There are three 250 pound bombs that are very similar yet slightly different to each other (seeker, role etc). These are the Raytheon SDB II, MBDA Spear III (which is a paper project as of now with decision due to go ahead with it or just buy the SDBII by 2018) and the Rafael SPICE 250. In terms of the explosive the SDB is in the middle with the Spear III at the bottom and Spice 250 at the top. Spice 250 has a dual mode EO/GPS seeker, SDBII has a tri mode GPS/INS guided MMW, Laser and IIR targeting seeker..Spear III will have brimstone's dual mode seeker and is designed in addition to medium altitude stealth fighter to also provide range to low flying typhoons because it packs in the JSOW_ER and MALD powering, honeywell turbojet to the back so that low altitude launches also give similar ranges (the turbojet requirement reduces the warhead size but its a tradeoff the RAF is comfortable with)..They are essentially similar weapons designed around the general 250 pound weight and as per the operator requirements for individual services (USAF, USN primary design drivers for SDBI and II, IDF design driver for Spice 250, and UK for Spear III).

At the moment the IDF has no plans to integrate the Spice 250 to the F-35, because frankly there is no room for new weapon integration in that program till the mid 2020's..IDF will however buy only the SDBI since the SDBII role is filled for them by the Spice 250 even though it may not have as good all weather capability. I doubt the IDF will buy a lot of SDBII's or any at all and will ultimately look to integrating the Spice 250 into the F-35A using the UAI option (the british will do the same if they develop the Spear III)...Spice 250 has already been integrated into the F-15, and F-16's and SDBI has been integrated into the F-15 fleet with the IDF as was claimed in an article provided earlier in the discussion. Clearly the IDF also sees the benefits of a 250 pound class highly accurate weapon, and as per flight global, Rafael already has a customer for the S250, and since it isn't integrated on the F-35 and won't likely be for at least a decade, that customer is one that is using a non-internal-payload equipped legacy fighter.
None of what I have been saying applies to the Spice which you have now introduced into this discussion. My interest and scorn is in the punies called SDB. Not Spice.
Spice 250 is the closest weapon to the SDBII..Same weight class and similar size allowing the same rack to carry the same amount of weapons. I posted an article about in my previous post, here's another one

The Israeli air force is equipping its fighter fleet with Rafael's new Spice 250 glide bomb, with the company having disclosed partial details of the system.

Unlike previous members of the company's Spice family of weapons, which added precision guidance kits to 2,000lb (900kg) and 1,000lb "dumb" bombs, this time Rafael is supplying a complete system, weighing 113kg.

Rafael says the Spice 250 can be loaded with 100 optional targets in a given area, with scene-matching algorithms. As with previous Spice products, the weapon navigates to a target area using INS/GPS guidance, before its electro-optical/imaging infrared sensor is engaged.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 18:31, edited 2 times in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by TSJones »

there is no guarantee the US will have it's space network operating when it needs it for targeting data. nor GPS for that matter.

so they've gotta plan B somewhere up their sleeve. they have to, considering the Chinese space launches in the last few years.

and they are persisting in the development/deployment of SDBs.

which tells me that SDB is superior to past bomb loads.

either that or they just don't care....
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

TSJ - There are few options ATM to replace weapons for GPS denied. Currently the only way around that is to use dual or tri mode seekers (if you want fire and forget) that in a GPS denied environment can switch to active MMW radars, EO, IIR etc. Thats expensive and drives up the cost..This is the main reason why the IDF is buying the SDBI and only using the Spice 250 for more precious targets and for moving targets. However developments are well underway to develop an alternative PNT to the GPS that will allow similar cost solution and not rely too much on space. The third offset strategy has that right at the top of the line in terms of requirements. That is definitely the next chapter in PGM's..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote:The decision to further enhance it, and procure thousands of them was based on both the technology and how the end product performed in its evaluation.
brarji - this is not about you personally but the statement is pure snake snake oil. A story made up to cover up an otherwise embarrassing booboo

Let me tell you the real story that shines out between the lines to me.

The US made a kick ass air dominance fighter in the F-22 and wanted to give it some semblance of attack capability but the damn thing had a teeny weeny bay that could hold next to nothing. So they said - heck we've got this and we've got the F-35 coming and a whole lot of other are paying for the F-35 and they are going to be really angry if we can't make it seem like these things can carry something reasonable internally.

So the SDB was developed. But it is so expensive that unit cost would be exorbitant unless large numbers are made. So the US said OK so let us use this same SDB on F 15s , F-16s and whatnot. That way it will look really good and in any case we have these pipsqueaks like Iraq and Afghanistan we can bomb at any time so we can develop the SDB and show that it is great.

So that is how the puy SDB came into being. An unnecessary embarrassing mistake that the US is trying to cover up as a serious advance.

Yes I may be the only person saying this. But I am also the first one on earth saying it. You heard it here first. We will know in a few years 8)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

TSJones wrote:
which tells me that SDB is superior to past bomb loads.

either that or they just don't care....
The US retains a third option. They continue to make and maintain all other types of bombs. The SDB is a temporary sideshow. But even temporary sideshows are big in the US.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

he US made a kick ass air dominance fighter in the F-22 and wanted to give it some semblance of attack capability but the damn thing had a teeny weeny bay that could hold next to nothing. So they said - heck we've got this and we've got the F-35 coming and a whole lot of other are paying for the F-35 and they are going to be really angry if we can't make it seem like these things can carry something reasonable internally
Can you point me to a tactical fighter jet that has a significantly larger bay? What reference are you using for TEENY WEENY in tactical aircraft?
So the SDB was developed. But it is so expensive that unit cost would be exorbitant unless large numbers are made. So the US said OK so let us use this same SDB on F 15s , F-16s and whatnot. That way it will look really good and in any case we have these pipsqueaks like Iraq and Afghanistan we can bomb at any time so we can develop the SDB and show that it is great
Nice bit of fiction. IN reality the SDB came into being because various DARPA and AFRL initiatives shows that you could get results with a smaller munitions. Those programs were initiated because the tactical advantage of having some missions of 500 pound bombs and 1000 pound bombs being replaced by 250 pound bombs was seen by the executers of air campaigns as a significant tactical advantage - similar to going from dumb bombs to PGM's. The SDB came into existence because technology and capability allowed and enabled it to do these missions..Not because that was the only thing that would fit and they said too bad "live with it" ... The F-22A can also carry the JDAM, and as many of them as any other stealth aircraft in its class.
So that is how the puy SDB came into being. An unnecessary embarrassing mistake that the US is trying to cover up as a serious advance.
LOL, and of course covering up by making up a FAKE test report, roping in partners and customers by presenting them false reports, fake videos and fake pictures etc..and of course barring this forum and reading your alternate reality, they won't realize the mistake :)

Here's the fake capability once again -



and of course others such as the IDF are lapping up the capability and have made an equally useless weapon in the Spear 250, and have integrated it into their non stealthy fleet and even managed to sell it to a non-stealth-fighter operating nation.
Yes I may be the only person saying this. But I am also the first one on earth saying it. You heard it here first. We will know in a few years 8)
:), Good that I got to hear this first. At least once the sham is exposed you can claim some form of redemption..Hopefully air-chiefs from around the world follow BR and read this and change the direction in which PGM's are heading ;)
The US retains a third option. They continue to make and maintain all other types of bombs. The SDB is a temporary sideshow. But even temporary sideshows are big in the US.
The only glide weapon in the US that provides SO ranges and the ability to attack autonomously at those ranges in a GPS denied and bad weather environment is the SDBII (you can also add the AGM-154C if you want to be liberal in terms of the seeker capabiliy). There are no plans to port that technology over to other weapon classes because its extremely tough to get long ranges with very heavy glide weapons and there are other programs to leverage those bombs to gain capability elsewhere (such as bunker busting 2000 pound bombs that can perform similar roles to a 5000 pound glide bunker buster - a concept that you will find equally strange ;))..In fact at the moment there are few weapons in the world that can provide that capability using a multi-mode seeker , the SDBII and the Spear 250 designed by operators that arguably are the most experienced operators of PGM's over the last 2-3 decades or so.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

brar_w wrote:
Nice bit of fiction. IN reality the SDB came into being because various DARPA and AFRL initiatives shows that you could get results with a smaller munitions. .
It's your fiction versus mine.. :)

I am certain DARPA were asked to get results from small munitions because of teeny bomb bays and potentially angry F-35 customers
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

^ On the contrary you can go and dig into the precursor programs that led to the evolution of Precision guided weapon capability, and what efforts were made by the above mentioned organizations to make PGM's smaller and yet give them lethality including the penetration of much larger bombs. Most of the precursor program info has been provided in this discussion you'll have to dig deeper into those programs to see what they did, how they did it, how much time and money was spent to get to that capability and why through that the SDB ended up actually achieving the targets sought from it. You develop the capability, and technology and then formulate the requirements for an acquisition program. Milestone A follows years of capability development..The strategists set long term aspirational goals for technology, project managers form organizations such as DARPA and AFRL etc go out and set technology goals and develop the technology. Once that technology has reached a desired state of maturity (Usually TRL 6 or 7 for an acquisition program of medium risk) you go out and start a formal program of record. Thats how things work. Thats how fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 were developed..the precursor technology was developed in the 70's and 80's that allowed for those far reaching RFP's to exist in the first place. Thats also how every thing from advanced missiles, to lasers, to rail-guns, EMALS and PGM's are developed.
I am certain DARPA were asked to get results from small munitions because of teeny bomb bays and potentially angry F-35 customers
That is not now DARPA or AFRL operate. These organizations go out and take on projects that are too far out (mostly, with some exceptions such as urgent needs programs) and de-risk and mature capability that is then transferred onto the traditional service acquisition and development phase. Need a Scramjet vehicle, AFRL will manage that program..Once they achieve their desired results, that capability will go the service (here the USAF) so that it can run a full blown program now that the capability has been de-risked. Its DARPA's goal to look decades into the future and see what sort of capability the technology can enable, and then develop that technology. GPS came from DARPA, because DARPA made investments as part of the second offset, to develop that capability and miniaturize it to a point where dumb bombs with a small battery can use it.. Now DARPA doesn't do GPS programs because the technology is mature enough for the USAF to manage. The entire purpose of DARPA and the reason of its existence is to develop "surprises" be it GPS and LGB enabled PGM's, hypersonics, stealth, and new forms of PNT that rid the US of reliance on GPS. Those are long term aspirational projects that the agency takes up. DARPA is just program-managers they don't develop anything on their own, but manage programs.

As mentioned most tacticians will se the utility in the ability to attack more targets per sortie, with smaller yet equally effective munitions. Its the job of organizations such as DARPA and AFRL to see this capability in the 80's and prepare the technology so that when it comes to do something with it, the USAF or the uSN has mature technology to launch programs in the 90's for operationalizing them in the 2000's.

Same thing is happening with the new 2000 pound bunker buster. AFRL ran a 4-5 year risk reduction capability, developed components such as the turbojet, better casing, more penetrating warhead and improved guidance..and now the project is being started by the USAF for a full blown program of record to field a 2000 pound bunker buster that has the same ability to attack underground facilities as the 5000 pound glide bomb. Again link provided to you earlier.

I don't think there is an end to this discussion and we'll have to agree to disagree. You'll continue to believe what you believe, claim everything that is counter to your claims is FAKE, and even to an extent where you claimed that the Spice250 is not the same class the SDB or SDBII. Even when evidence to the contrary is provided you can simply and conveniently claim that the evidence is FAKE, based on fake reports even going and calling the video (without any evidence ) FAKE.

The goal post has continuously shifted in this discussion. First it was that the SDB cannot attack anything so a simple tin shelter would do. Once repeated references were provided to you, and others also came in claiming that it was not the case the goal post was shifted to what does it meant to INDIA, India doesn't have the capability etc etc That point is also rather absurd because it doesn't mean that the IAF will never have that capability, and won't ever have the technology especially when nations around the world are either acquiring it, developing it or looking into it, and the fact that long term it can provide a great leap in capability to the PAKFA and AMCA...Its perfectly logical for analysts working on different air-forces and requirements to come to the same conclusion..With respect to PGM's that analysis has been largely similar around the world..All have seen how well they allow one to conduct an aerial campaign.. I guess, lets end this since its rather pointless to go back and forth. Lets agree to disagree!!
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jul 2015 19:18, edited 1 time in total.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by srai »

AMCA can carry external loads too.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by brar_w »

srai wrote:AMCA can carry external loads too.
And the fact then when it does, it can carry a lot more like all stealth aircraft. All stealth aircraft are designed around a certain range/payload for first day strike..The F-35 for example carries 18,000+ pounds of internal fuel because it can't carry bags in a first day strike mission. When you load it up for an Air-defense degraded environment you don't need extra bags..18250 pounds of internal fuel plus IFR will give you the 600-800 nautical mile heavy strike radius. And when it is kitted with external weapons, it carries a lot more than the F-16 or F-18 since it has the ability to carry bombs internally, has internal targeting and EW sensors and doesn't clog up pylons with bags like the viper or hornet.

Similarly the AMCA will carry much larger fuel than the Mig-29 or M2K internally, will carry 2.5 tons internally, will/should have an EO/IR targeting that is integrated to the frame, as an AESA and integrated EA suite..All in all, it frees up the entire pylons to carry the huge payload in it wouldn't be overly optimistic to expect to be able to carry a larger payload once the full envelope (int+ext) is opened up. Neither the Mig-29 or the M2k can go into a non-permissive environment without a serious threat of not coming back (google Mission X with F-16's from the Gulf War) and in the future they may be completely denied (One would imagine the IAF believes that hence the investment in stealth PAKFA, stealth AMCA and the UCAV)..hence what the super sized payload for the Fulcrum or M2k is hardly matters for a comparison..they can't fight in that regime..The best stealth strike aircraft was the F117 and it could carry max of 2 x 2000 pound. The current strike fighter is the F-35 and it carries a similar load...The AMCA will also carry at best a 2x2000 pound load and at worst a 2x1000 pound bomb capacity. Either way, its the same solution for the same problem with all airforces - not because all are copying the HAWA of the US but because they are running their bay trades and coming to the same conclusion on how to optimize the payload bay on stealth fighters especially in an era where smaller munitions are only going to get more lethal and you can carry a lot more of them...Same reason why everyone is developing stealth for the future because there are advantages it provides and everyone that runs their analysis gets to see those advantages (and disadvantages as well such s complexity in design)..Same way folks are developing BVR missies and super cruising fighters and why the 5th generation air superiorirty fighters are still mach 2 class like the ones they replace as opposed to being significantly better in the top performance..Because it makes sense as per the analysis of all capabilities when taken in totality.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Su-30: News and Discussion - August 9 , 2014

Post by shiv »

srai wrote:AMCA can carry external loads too.
So long as its not 30 SDBs I will live with it.
Locked