Munitions/sub-munitions: accuracy, power and utility

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 05:48

Ramana suggested a new thread about munitions and that is certainly a new topic for BRF.

Let me start with a few introductory remarks

What makes any munition destructive? The most dumbed down answer would be that the destructive power of a munition is its ability to cause critical and irreversible damage to its target.

In Bangalore, not far from where I live, is an ancient temple and there is a stone pillar in front of that temple which bears a scar from a British cannonball that struck it while they were fighting Tipu Sultan. The pillar stands because the cannonball was not an exploding one and it bounced off, simply chipping the pillar. Perhaps if the cannonball had exploded on contact, the pillar would have collapsed.

That brings me to two separate aspects of "destructive potential" of ballistic projectiles. One is kinetic energy and the other is explosive potential. A high speed bullet from an assault rifle does not explode. It's damage is caused by its speed and weight - i.e kinetic energy. Projectiles that explode like modern artillery shells use explosive power to add to the damage.

The Brahmos is advertised as a deadly weapon because it combines very high kinetic energy with the explosive power of 300 kg of high explosive.

Most air to air missiles are designed to kill with "near misses". The missile has a fuse that makes it explode somewhere near the target and the shrapnel and blast are supposed to cripple the aircraft. Hand thrown grenades are like that. Newer American anti ballistic missile designs are supposed to be "kinetic kill" where they kill simply by actually colliding with the target at high velocity. No explosion.

The American Small Diameter Bomb is mainly a kinetic energy weapon for penetration. But penetration of hard targets has always been an issue and a whole thread can be filled up. In 1970 I visited Kolkata and was absolutely fascinated to see a Paki tank with 25 cm thick armour (from Asal Uttar, 1965 war) on display. The armour had -2-3 holes in it where the metal appeared to have melted. If you see the enlarged image by clicking on the thumbnail below you can see the holes in the turret. They were just about 5-6 cm in diameter. My hand would not go through.

What caused them? How was the tank crippled? They were probably caused by armour piercing rounds - perhaps shaped warheads that melted a hole in the metal and sprayed white hot metal on to the occupants of the tank, killing them instantly

So let me come to questions that could spark some discussion

What targets would we need to hit in war?
1. Runways
2. Radars
3. Aircraft shelters
4. Ammunition dumps, fuel tanks, refineries
5. Command and Communication (hardened bunkers)
6. Area targets - vehicles, tanks, troops, supplies
7. Transport infrastructure like bridges
8. Convoys of troops, trains, tanks and trucks
9. Missile launch sites
10. Artillery pieces
11. Water and electric supply (transformers, substations, storage tanks)
12 Targets of opportunity

What are the classes of munitions that would be most appropriate for these?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 07:06

I will make one disclaimer and one more post and then take a break. If I say Deepika Padukone is pretty it does not mean I am about to run away from my wife and family.

In the same way, when I say "dumb bombs" are effective it does not mean I am endorsing dumb bombs over and above precision guidance. Unfortunately in this mode of communication, that very assumption is made by a series of people who gradually get attracted to active threads where posts are appearing thick and fast and no one really wants to get into the detail of who has said what.

When it comes to war and destruction there are two aspects.
1. the actual weapon that causes damage
2. The method by which that weapon is brought to bear on the target

If I have a sword, I have to swing it and cut your neck deep enough to cause you to bleed to death from cut jugulars and carotids. Or I must pierce it deep enough to cause lung or gut injuries that cause a slower, lingering death. In the meantime you may choose to hit me back - which is a risk I would like to avoid. So what can I do?

I could choose to cut your carotids from far away using a spear or arrow. But then my next problem is power and accuracy. if you are 100 meters away - my spear will be useless. or if I hit your thigh, I may not hurt you enough. My CEP has to be better.

The point of this post is to divide the problem of munitions into

1. Type of munition (eg explosive, kinetic energy, multiple sub munitions etc)
2. mode of delivery
3. Accuracy

It is useful to discuss these topics under these three headings

Under "bombs" we talk about what damage bombs cause (dumb or non dumb)
Mode of delivery and accuracy are extra add ons to the basic issue of bombs

Start with types of dumb bombs or inert non explosive bullets and how and why they cause damage and what they can or cannot do. Delivery and guidance comes next

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 08:36

I could carry on and on in this thread and probably will - but here's a little quiz for fun (and wet dreamz)

What type of air delivered munition would be best to flatten a Pakistani terrorist training camp of say 5 acres in extent? Assume roughly circular shape.

A. Multiple dumb bombs
B. A few cluster bombs
C. Napalm
D. Airburst fuel air-bomb
E. Precision guided bombs - one bomb one hut

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Jul 2015 08:59

shiv wrote:I could carry on and on in this thread and probably will - but here's a little quiz for fun (and wet dreamz)

What type of air delivered munition would be best to flatten a Pakistani terrorist training camp of say 5 acres in extent? Assume roughly circular shape.

A. Multiple dumb bombs
B. A few cluster bombs
C. Napalm
D. Airburst fuel air-bomb
E. Precision guided bombs - one bomb one hut

I would say D (Russian FOAB), should do the trick nicely. Given it can has been dropped from the IL 76

It is good thread for learning about different types of munitions and how to use them. In subsequent posts I will try to list my views about the different types of munitions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 09:35

Yes I would put that as first choice. Napalm may burn and deplete itself but parts that are not burnt will survive. Cluster munitions - especially those that are designed to remain unexploded and explode at variable intervals or when cleaning up would be delicious but they would typically fall in a linear pattern because of the flight path of aircraft. Dumb HE bombs would do the trick as well but it would require multiple passes and again a linear patter of bomb damage. PGMs - probably no role for something you simply wipe out as cheaply and as horribly as possible.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 16 Jul 2015 09:41

Shiv, Given the list of potential targets copied from your first post.

What targets would we need to hit in war?
1. Runways
2. Radars
3. Aircraft shelters
4. Ammunition dumps, fuel tanks, refineries
5. Command and Communication (hardened bunkers)
6. Area targets - vehicles, tanks, troops, supplies
7. Transport infrastructure like bridges
8. Convoys of troops, trains, tanks and trucks
9. Missile launch sites
10. Artillery pieces
11. Water and electric supply (transformers, substations, storage tanks)
12 Targets of opportunity

I would say that the munitions used will depend upon the intelligence available and stage of the war. The airforce finds it self in. I would reclassify the target list in the following manner.

Counter Air phase will require us to hit, runways, radars, aircraft shelters, C2 nodes, SAM Sites, Missile launch sites,

Anti infrastructure phase will require us to hit Transport infra, Water and electric supply (transformers, substations, storage tanks), fuel tanks, refineries.

Close Air Support will require us to hit, Ammunition dumps, Convoys of troops, trains, tanks and trucks, Artillery pieces, Targets of opportunity.

Please note that the phases that I have listed are only listed as an example and in any potential conflict. It is not necessary that all will take place. Or for that matter, they will take place as distinct phases in the war.

Having said so,it is also important to understand the technical competence or military industrial, information tech capability of the warring forces.

If the one of the sides is the US, then I would say that not a lot of people can go toe to toe with them in a stand up fight. Asymetric fight is a seperate issue.

When it comes to the IAF, we are looking at a different set of challenges. Bases on the IAFs ability to wage a war at the momoment, I would say that when it comes to hitting different targets, it will use the following weapons. For the following target sets.

1. Runways :- Durandal, Dumb Bombs,
2. Radars :- ARM, Cluster bombs
3. Aircraft shelters:- 1000 KG Lgb, or if glide weapon is available, and can be guided through way points, a 125 KG bomb can be sent through the front door and will do the job.
4. Ammunition dumps, fuel tanks, refineries :- LGP of different sizes depending on the target + Cluster bombs
5. Command and Communication (hardened bunkers) :- Bunker Buster, biggest possible bombs
6. Area targets - vehicles, tanks, troops, supplies:- The Sensor fused munition, + cluster bombs+ Rockets+ Air Launched ATGM.
7. Transport infrastructure like bridges :- Depending upon the construction, LGB from 250 kg to 1000kg.
8. Convoys of troops, trains, tanks and trucks:- ATGM, to unguided rockets+ cluster bomb.
9. Missile launch sites:- Cluster Bombs+ LGB
10. Artillery pieces :- Cluster bomb + Rockets
11. Water and electric supply (transformers, substations, storage tanks) :- LGB
12 Targets of opportunity :- LGB+ Dumb bombs+ Cluster Bombs.

The LGB can be replaced with a Free fall or glide GPS guided bomb, when the Indian sat navigation system comes on line.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 13:51

I did specify "air delivered" but otherwise even a barrage of artillery or laying down a carpet of Pinaka should do the trick. I wonder if the little mentioned thermobaric warhead of the Prithvi fits the bill.

What would be the best way to demolish the private homes of wealthy Paki generals and people like Hafiz Saeed?

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 16 Jul 2015 14:55

^^^ Add to the list of targets:

- Ports
- Oil Refineries and Storage, Factories, Industries
- Nuclear Installations
- Headquarters (Mil and Civil)
- Bridges
- Telecommunication Nodes (Electronic / Telephony)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2015 19:52

When it comes to wide area targets with individual "soft"/non hardened buildings like factories/HQ buildings/telephone exchanges/power stations etc - ordinary high explosive bombs will do the necessary damage.

The only question is: "How will they be delivered?"

When India bought Jaguars the standard method of delivery (which the Jag was designed for) was very low radar avoiding flight and accurate single pass delivery of munitions over the target. For India, this will still hold true and will sufer from teh drawback of attracting ground fire once the attackers are discovered. However - very low level flight may keep the Jags from discovery soon.

LGBs have an obvious role here, but LGBs need to be released from altitude and at altitude the attacker will be seen on radar from a long way off. We have no AMCA yet. A high flying fighter may be protected by escorts against interception, but what are Pak SAMs like?

What all this means is that SEAD will have to be done first. We currently do not have stealth fighters for SEAD. What will we use? What aircraft? What munitions?

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 16 Jul 2015 22:56

Shiv wrote
sudeepj wrote:
Define 'guidance infrastructure'. If by that you mean a Navigation satellite system, the costs are pretty low.
In order that no confusion is created by mulitiple people not reading multiple posts of mine, I repeat that I am talking about the infrastructure required to achieve less than 2-3 meter CEP using Small Diameter bombs (as defined by the US) - 8 of which can fit into the F-35's bay and which are about 70 inches long, weigh about 280 lb and have about 20 kg of explosive which will come in variants SDB I and SDB II
The guidance used for the above mentioned munition depends on whether it is SDB I or II. SDB I is GPS guided. But what it requires apart from GPS guidance is "SDB accuracy support Infrastructure". From Wiki (i have a more academic source but I will post it only if you insist)
Quote:
The GBU-39 has a circular error probable (CEP) of 5–8 meters,[11] which means it has a 50% probability of hitting within that distance of its intended target. CEP is reduced by updating differential GPS offsets prior to weapon release. These offsets are calculated using an SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure, consisting of three or more GPS receivers at fixed locations transmitting calculated location to a correlation station at the theatre Air Operations Center. The corrections are then transmitted by Link 16 to SDB-equipped aircraft.

That accuracy support infrastructure is "3 fixed locations" plus AWACS, Drone or man on ground - any of who can update the exact coordinates. This SDB Accuracy Support Infrastructure costs - according to another source US$ 700,000 per area of operation where SDBs are supposed to be used.

Sir, all this jingbang technology, 'three fixed locations' etc., is doing is differential GPS. This is a very well understood technique/technology, and the IAF/ISRO would be fools if they dont already have DGPS stations set up near the Pak/China borders. All that this technique does is to help the system correct for iono/tropo errors and these corrections are pretty good for a few hundred kms. So for instance, DGPS stations in Jaisalmer, Kutch, Amritsar would help cover most of the contested area. In fact, we already operate a similar system in GAGAN. The rest of the stuff about AWACS etc. is something that appears to be your imagination working overtime to justify your argument. Why would you need an AWACS for a mission to bomb a fixed target/location? Further, what extra will you need for an SDB type weapon that you dont need for a laser guided version?

sudeepj wrote:
You are putting the horse before the cart. The nature of the technology used for guidance is such that it draws upon the progress in the civil sector (better software, better silicon) and more accuracy is a natural consequence. The argument is, why do I need a 100kg of explosive, when I can guide my weapon to within 2 meters of where I want it to go? As I mentioned earlier, the cost of replicating the guidance technology is near 0 after a certain number of units have been built. The cost of producing/packaging/carrying those 100 kgs of extra explosive does not go down in a similar manner.

India now has the ability to illuminate targets by laser and use laser reflections to help bombs home in to an accuracy level of maybe a 10-20 meter level CEP. The drawback is that laser is blinded by smoke and cloud and there has to be an AWACS, friendly fighter, drone or man on the ground illuminating the target continuously till the bomb hits. Still the accuracy is only in tens of meters - which is fine with bigger bombs such as 250 kb bombs. We also have inertial guidance which is probably as good for short ranges but we have not fitted them on dumb, gliding bombs yet. But it is unlikely toget us 2-3 meter CEP which is what the US defined and designed SDB requires

In order to field the SDB (a US defined and made weapons as defined above) India would have to rent or buy and put in place the additional infrastructure which we do not have. That apart the new SDB II is supposed to have IR and MMW. We have IR guidance on Nag, but I don't think we are there yet wrt MMW

It would be a pretty bad move to *buy* SDB like weapons from the US, because you dont control that technology. On the other hand, such weapons are incredibly cheap when produced in bulk and when the technology is developed locally in our own universities and labs.

Please cut out this rhetorical "cart before the horse" nonsense. What we have now is laser designation for warheads. We do not have the ability to feed accurate GPS coordinates to warheads to achieve less than 2-3 meter accuracy. For that we will have to buy from the US. Indigenous development is some years away. Not a current capability. Current capability is the "horse". The future is the cart. You are putting the cart before the horse. Not me.

With due respect, read what I said again. Smaller bombload is a natural consequence of greater accuracy, which itself is a natural consequence of progress in civilian technology. For instance, those DGPS stations, they are widely deployed in the west to enhance aviation/marine/.. navigation. You are arguing, that the greater accuracy is needed at great cost, because of a small bombload.. which is simply incorrect. This is the cart before the horse part.

One last point I would make is, that GPS type receivers are digital.. Which means they are very cheap to produce. Any Laser or optical type system will simply not be able to compete in cost because that is the nature of the two technologies.

If we, in India were to develop the equivalent of a "Small Diameter Bomb" we need not be held back by the puny and inconvenient size restrictions of the American SDB. We can design a bomb that is heavier which can still penetrate and give a respectable size blast and our existing aircraft will still be able to carry 6, 8 or more of these

We can develop maha-bombs if we need to. My point is simple, the argument that such accuracy comes at 'great cost' is simply incorrect. It is actually the other way round, dumb bombs cost more politically, they cost more by way of attrition in the platforms and they impose a greater opportunity cost. And if this accuracy enables smaller weapons, so much the better.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2015 05:31

sudeepj wrote:
We can develop maha-bombs if we need to. My point is simple, the argument that such accuracy comes at 'great cost' is simply incorrect. It is actually the other way round, dumb bombs cost more politically, they cost more by way of attrition in the platforms and they impose a greater opportunity cost. And if this accuracy enables smaller weapons, so much the better.

I have no major disagreement with your post except for something you have said in the above quote. This is the way American Maya clouds the way we think and it has nothing to do with cost of electronics which may be made as cheap as cowdung

We do not need to develop "maha bombs". Yes. I agree. Nowhere have I asked for the creation of maha bombs - and that statement sounds like you believe that opposing the idea of SDB equals support for the creation of "maha bombs" that can be carried only in ones and twos. That is amusing nonsense because a few days ago people were saying that I oppose smart bomb guidance just because I oppose the American SDB. This is the mental fog created by American information overload. Any opposition to the SDB is interpreted as an opposition to modernity, technology and progress. That is American maya.

All I have been saying is that we do not need to develop any new small bombs either, least of all an entirely new class of puny bombs containing 20 kg explosive. All we need to do is to make our already small bombs smart. It is the Americans who were reliant on Maha bombs for small jobs and it was the Americans who suddenly did a U turn and started talking "small diameter bombs". In fact the Americans have extra heavy bombs on ships that have 30 kg extra metal jacket to delay explosion in case of fire

We already have small bombs. We have bombs as low as 3 kg, and intermediate ones of 100 -120 kg. All we need to do is to put guidance on what we have. It would be a costly mistake to imagine that the Americans have invented something totally new and unknown by creating small, light bombs. They only invented something for their F-22s and F-35 and offered that to everyone else.

In fact I believe that American SDBs are particularly puny and useless with just 20 kg explosive unless CEP is down to a less than a couple of meters. We already have small bombs that are only slightly bigger, which can be carried in our aircraft in respectable numbers but which will still be effective when the CEP is within 10 meters as can occur in operational conditions. Laser aiming will work even if your GPS satellites are shut off or destroyed and a slightly larger load of explosive can compensate for a CEP error.

It is American maya that makes people argue that India does not already have small bombs and that it is an American invention. We need not go the SDB way. All we need to do is to put guidance on our small bombs which are hardly puny, but they are still small.

Unfortunately for too many Indians have to hear that America is doing something before they accept that it might be useful. In fact reports say that with delays in the F-35 Boeing has increased the size of its puny SDB and is offering it for other aircraft or as a ground launched weapon.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Jul 2015 06:01

In fact reports say that with delays in the F-35 Boeing has increased the size of its puny SDB and is offering it for other aircraft or as a ground launched weapon.

The Ground launched SDB is just the standard SDBI with a surplus M26 rocket motor in the back. Boeing has been offering it pretty much since the SDB was operationalized and Sweden and SAAB took them up on the offer. Another product that Boeing has developed, and demonstrated was the SDB-L (the original claim by VIV was talking about it, when you assumed that he was talking about the SDBI)..It could attack moving targets and in many ways was more similar to the Rafael Spice 250. The Boeing bomb however lost out to the Raytheon SDBII solution on account of the latter being able to attack targets in poor weather using its MMW radar. It would have been cheaper but less capable - something in between the current SDBI and II in both capability and cost.

Would love reports on an upsized SDB, in addition to the 20 m CEP for LGBs claimed earlier, and the so called reports that the delays in the f-35 are leading to a magical increase in the size of the Boeing small diameter bomb..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2015 09:16

If India has to start a war with Pakistan next month, how will we achieve SEAD? Any ideas?

I suspect we have spent so much time talking about air defence, WVR and BVRAAMs and agility and dogfighting that we have spent zero time on thinking what India will do, given current Indian equipment levels to fight an attacking war.

SEAD will only be the start of an attacking war

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2015 09:52

shiv wrote:If India has to start a war with Pakistan next month, how will we achieve SEAD? Any ideas?

I suspect we have spent so much time talking about air defence, WVR and BVRAAMs and agility and dogfighting that we have spent zero time on thinking what India will do, given current Indian equipment levels to fight an attacking war.

SEAD will only be the start of an attacking war

I think SEAD can be achieved both by Soft Kill and Hard Kill.

For Soft Kill they have to use Air Borne Jamming in terms of using Stand Off Jammers , Likely M2K , Su-30 and Jags have those capability via French ,Israel , Russian and Indian Jamming Pods.

For Hard Kill , I know of M2K using Matra Armat ARM and Sukhoi and Perhaps even Modernised Mig-29UPG having these capability via Kh-31 , 25 and 58 integrated into it

Armat http://www.ausairpower.net/alarm-armat.html
Kh http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/

some of the Kh series have broad band passive seeker and hence can be used against wide range of Radar Targets

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2015 09:56

Check the Siva and Tuskar pod by DARE

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg

I even saw something called MADF pod but dont recollect it what it is.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Jul 2015 10:05

Talk of Glide Bomb DRDO is developing a series of these

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/prec ... 78033.html

The DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organisation) is working on developing glide capabilities on the existing bombs of various payloads including 100 kgs, 250 kgs and 500 kgs.

"We are developing glide bombs which can be directed towards their intended targets using guidance mechanisms after being dropped from aircraft of the IAF," outgoing DRDO chief V. K. Saraswat said.

"Such a capability will allow the IAF pilots to drop the bombs at their intended targets from stand-off distances as the glide capabilities will help in enhancing the range of the bombs," he said.

The DRDO has already carried out two trials of such bombs successfully and plans to hold more trials this year for proving the capabilities of the ammunition.

And ARM

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 346998.ece

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Jul 2015 20:20

Austin wrote: For Hard Kill , I know of M2K using Matra Armat ARM and Sukhoi and Perhaps even Modernised Mig-29UPG having these capability via Kh-31 , 25 and 58 integrated into it

Armat http://www.ausairpower.net/alarm-armat.html
Kh http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/511/516/

some of the Kh series have broad band passive seeker and hence can be used against wide range of Radar Targets

BAP 100 (Mirage 2000) and Betaab (Su-30) for runway denial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3lILMsf5Q

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2015 04:05

I think we started too far along basic knowledge.

Wiki has dumb bomb 101:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb

Please read every para and understand the topic.

Many type of bombs usage depends on target.
Essentially consists of a shell type casing filled with explosives fitted with nose or tail fuze.
A tail unit attached for flight stability: means nose down and tail up.
Now add guidance, steerable fins and wings to give extended range to avoid air defences.

Now there are different ways of delivering bombs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2015 06:51

What would India use to take out hardened aircraft shelters?

I am guessing the KAB 500 - which even the MiG 21 Bison can deliver. I have some videos of that somewhere

From Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAB-500KR

The KAB-500KR is an electro-optical TV-guided fire and forget bomb developed by the Soviet Air Force in the 1980s. It remains in service with the CIS and various export customers.

The KAB-500KR is analogous to the American GBU-15 weapon. It uses a standard Soviet/Russian FAB-500 general-purpose bomb, with a nominal weight of 500 kg (1,102 lb), as a warhead, adding a low-light television seeker and guidance fins to turn it into a guided, unpowered glide bomb.

The bomb is 3.05 m (10 ft) long and weighs 560 kg (1,234 lb), of which 380 kg (837 lb) is a hardened, armor-piercing warhead capable of penetrating up to 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) of reinforced concrete. The weapon's seeker can lock onto a target at ranges of up to 15 to 17 km (9.4 to 10.6 miles), depending on visibility. The technology of KAB-500KR is also used for larger bombs, such as KAB-1500KR based on the 1500 kg class FAB-1500 iron bomb.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jul 2015 09:47

The Indian version of British 1000lb can go thrum 6 ft concrete. Its cast steel casing. Couple with Griffin kit.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Jul 2015 09:56

Austin wrote:Check the Siva and Tuskar pod by DARE

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/413 ... va-pod.jpg

I even saw something called MADF pod but dont recollect it what it is.

Siva is the HADF - High Accuracy Direction Finder, aka Super RWR, for Kh-31 ARMs.
Tusker is a jammer with FML (probably upgraded with DFRM later) for the MiG-27 and Jaguars. Not known how many IAF purchased.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2015 19:56

KAB-500
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYrE2EMzN4Y

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Jul 2015 20:18

Cratered runway at Tezgaon 1971

The next morning, Bhoop says he devised a combat plan to bomb the runways of the Pakistani base in Tezgaon, near Dacca. “Four MiGs left the ground with instructions to nosedive from a height of four kilometres and bomb the entire stretch of runway.” It was a risky idea. “I swooped down first, even as white puffs started appearing all around the aircraft. The enemy had seen us.” After dropping two bombs on the runway, he recalls zoom-climbing up to five kilometres and taking a loop. Retrieving the camera, he took photos of the damage done on the ground while upside down in the air. - See more at: http://www.caravanmagazine.in/lede/aeri ... EBLpe.dpuf

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2015 07:26

ramana wrote:The Indian version of British 1000lb can go thrum 6 ft concrete. Its cast steel casing. Couple with Griffin kit.

For the IAF at least, in the foreseeable future (2-5 years) dumb bombs are going to play a very important role.

Having said that I want to point out two sets of facts
1. In the 1991 Gulf war, 93% of tonnage dropped was dumb bombs. I think that percentage may have changed over the last 2 decades. Need to look for data - because after the "hot war" it has all been PGMs and pinpoint targets albeit at a very slow and sustainable rate

2. Going back to the history of the WW2 "Bomber Offensive" everyone now knows that all those 100s of thousands of dumb bombs did not achieve much. The same holds true for Vietnam. These facts led to two several developments

a. Low level "under the radar" attacks with single pass bomb dropping. That is what the Jaguar and Tornado were designed for.

b. But attrition from ground fire was something the US understood from its Vietnam experience and the US led the development of so many new technologies that are in use today. These include hard and soft SEAD, Precision Guided Munitions and Stealth.

Hard and soft SEAD was something the Israelis used to great effect in 1993, But later Hamas wised up and gave the Israelis a surprise - I can't recall the year. I think they used camouflaged SAMs and did not turn on their radars - I honestly can't recall the details.

Stealth and PGMs are the new mantra. Right now only the US has the capability to apply both these technologies to any war they get into. The rest of the world is far behind. Even the Russians and Chinese are not there although the Russians are pretty competent in terms of guided missiles as PGMs. The point I want to make is that while PGMs in increasing number and variety are the future, any war that India gets into in the next 2 years (probably more) will lay heavy emphasis on dumb bombs with heavy human interference in their accurate delivery despite the known risks of this.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Jul 2015 07:37

shiv wrote: In the 1991 Gulf war, 93% of tonnage dropped was dumb bombs. I think that percentage may have changed over the last 2 decades. Need to look for data - because after the "hot war" it has all been PGMs and pinpoint targets albeit at a very slow and sustainable rate

I have posted the exact number and percentage earlier in the discussion. 7.5% of the munitions in the Gulf War were PGM's, this moved to 60+% in Allied force and between 65-70% in OIF. If you look at the J series inventory - At the moment there are enough J-seres weapons to conduct the entire Gulf-Wars (both of them) again using just the J-series of bombs although despite of the large PGM inventory the USAF has roughly fourth of the squadron strength compared to where it was in 1992 so many many more PGM's per fighter or bomber sortie even compared to a decade ago.

Btw, on the history of PGM's here is an interesting tidbit -

The other bridge that was crucial to hitting at the North Vietnamese logistical support of the Easter invasion was the Thanh Hoa Bridge, an immensely tough rail bridge nicknamed "Dragon's Jaw" that crossed the Song Ma River and connected the rail shipment points from China to Hanoi. During Operation Rolling Thunder from 1965 to 1968 over 1,000 missions flew against the Dragon's Jaw, not one mission succeeding in bringing its spans down. The USAF even resorted to dropping floating bombs upstream of the bridge to try and bring it down in Operation Carolina Moon. Nothing worked, it was known as the toughest target in North Vietnam. On 13 May 1972, two days after the Paul Doumer Bridge was dropped, the 8th TFW set out to drop the Thanh Hoa Bridge for good with fourteen Phantoms carrying nine 3,000 lb LGBs, fifteen 2,000 lb LGBs, and forty-eight 500 lb conventional bombs (due to a shortage of laser-guided bombs). Attacking through an intense flak barrage, direct hits by the LGBs put the entire western span of the Dragon's Jaw into the Song Ma River below. Before the end of Linebacker I in October, the Navy flew an additional eleven missions against the bridge and the USAF another two to insure the bridge was out for good.

You have to go back around 4 years to document the first LGB PGM drop in the Vietnam war -

The wolfpack dropped the first LGB in combat on May 23, 1968, with guidance kits and fins bolted on to World War II-vintage M-117 750-pound bombs.

Percission Guided Munitions were born out of Gerald R Ford's Second Offset Strategy that focused on a distinct qualitative advantage over the Soviet Union, without breaking the bank in terms of arming to the teeth. The first offset strategy focused on covering the strength gap through nuclear weapons and later tactical nuclear weapons. By the time the second offset strategy hit the drawing board the SU had covered the technology gap in nuclear weapons essentially leaving the US and NATO with 2 options, either to risk a massive $ investment and break the bank by matching the SU buildup numerically, or building a qualitative advantage through investments in advanced technology. DARPA and other agencies were tasked with the latter through the 2nd offset strategy that continued to produce technologies through the presidency of Reagan and even beyond. The current crop of semiconductor technologies, advanced processing, stealth, GPS and GPS guided munitions and advanced data links all are a result of the second offset strategy.

The current crop of PGM's owe their existence to those hard and substantial investments by DARPA and other research and management bodies. The third offset strategy btw was announced in the last 18 months or so.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 11:31

Maya is actually an acronym, appears in Yog Vashishta.

MAYA = Modern erA Yearning for Another-thread.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jul 2015 12:11

May, 2015 :: Unexploded 50kg Bomb moved from Wembley building site to be detonated

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 19 Jul 2015 13:23

my squadron went to LGB's in 1972-73. Before that it was all snake and nape.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2015 16:16

The other question about any conflict that India may get into in the next couple of years is, "What are we going to do with all our Prithvis?"

They are still in service and last I read there were at least a dozen (or was it half a dozen) different warhead types for Prithvi and I am not talking about nuclear warheads. I recall reading about bomblets and thermobaric. So it would seem to me that in the early stages of war Prithvis would serve a role in taking out radar sites and maybe even airfields.

Every every time people have spoken about Prithvis the statement that always comes up, lifted straight from the stock information that ballistic missiles will be mistaken for nukes and a nuclear war will start. That may have been true for the US and Russia but we have now had several wars where ballistic missiles have been fired and shot down. I see no reason why India should do a pant browning - considering we have Prithvis. In fact, using the same logic any cruise missile from Pakistan should be construed as a nuclear attack. So no I don't think nukes are going to come up so early.

And of course there is the Brahmos - which I expect will play a role in the early hours of war along with Prithvis.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 19 Jul 2015 16:53

BTW what's the latest count of PGMs(by type) in the IAF inventory?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 19 Jul 2015 17:35

shiv wrote:If India has to start a war with Pakistan next month, how will we achieve SEAD? Any ideas?

I suspect we have spent so much time talking about air defence, WVR and BVRAAMs and agility and dogfighting that we have spent zero time on thinking what India will do, given current Indian equipment levels to fight an attacking war.

SEAD will only be the start of an attacking war

I think our best SEAD / DEAD should be Prithvi and Brahmos. But why not Agni ?

Just after launch we announce that "Oh we have just launched Agni (s). But do not worry. It is NOT carrying any nuclear warhead

Kersi

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 19 Jul 2015 17:42

And what about PN at and around Karachi and Gwadar ?

Do we send our precious Brahmos or Klub ? I think our Urans (or Styx) maybe be sufficient. Supported by Sea Eagle if it is still in service ?

I believe IAF had AS 7, NATO Code name 'Kerry', on MiG 27. We can use for soft targets, no ECM / ESM, where MiG 27 and go AND return to base

Kersi

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Jul 2015 19:04

Kersi D wrote:And what about PN at and around Karachi and Gwadar ?

Do we send our precious Brahmos or Klub ? I think our Urans (or Styx) maybe be sufficient. Supported by Sea Eagle if it is still in service ?

I believe IAF had AS 7, NATO Code name 'Kerry', on MiG 27. We can use for soft targets, no ECM / ESM, where MiG 27 and go AND return to base

Kersi

Kersi, could you or anyone else identify these (from Aero India 2003)

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2015 06:15

Carlo Kopp to the rescue:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html

Upper half of image: L to R
~~R-60~~ R-73, (name edited courtesy Austingaru), R-77, KAB-500 and KH-31

Lower half. L to R
KH-31, KH-35, R-27, R-77, ~~R-60~~ R-73, (name edited courtesy Austingaru)

The KAB 500 in the image seems to be the electro optical one that is seen in the video I posted earlier in this thread
KH-31 comes in anti-ship and anti-radar versions. Kh-35 is a stand off missile

Carlo Kopp's page linked above has info

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2015 09:09

Here is an image of the types of warheads for Prithvi missiles

"BCES" means "Blast cum Earth shock"

Ajai Shuklaw had an image of a BCES warhead in his blog
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2010/08/r ... -that.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/T ... arhead.jpg

Here is an Indian academic paper with a lot of math that I cannot follow about BCES warheads
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/ind ... /3983/2281

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jul 2015 11:32

shiv wrote:

Carlo Kopp to the rescue:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Regional-PGM.html

Upper half of image: L to R
R-60, R-77, KAB-500 and KH-31

Lower half. L to R
KH-31, KH-35, R-27, R-77, R-60

The KAB 500 in the image sems to be the electro optical one that is seen in the video I posted earlier in this thread
KH-31 comes in anti-ship and anti-radar versions. Kh-35 is a stand off missile

Carlo Kopp's page linked above has info

Shiv , The A2A missile is not the old R-60 which shot the PN Atlantique but the R-73E Archer

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/504/

They have a new variant too of the same missile called RVV-MD

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/5 ... 8266ea4909

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Jul 2015 13:37

^^Ok Thx corrected

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Jul 2015 13:57

shiv wrote:Hard and soft SEAD was something the Israelis used to great effect in 1993, But later Hamas wised up and gave the Israelis a surprise - I can't recall the year. I think they used camouflaged SAMs and did not turn on their radars - I honestly can't recall the details.

You might be thinking of Syria. Hamas has never fielded any SAMs (though Israel claims that its now managed to acquire some Strela-2s).