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

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jul 2015 19:40

^^^

There will be 4 or 6 external under wing stations available when stealth is not required as much. Each station will likely be rated between 800kg to 1500kg. Maybe even up to 2000kg. Plenty of weapon options.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2015 19:44

brar_w wrote: The goal post has continuously shifted in this discussion.!

In fact you could not see the goalpost and it was never where you thought it was. One thing that I started with is that the SDBs are a set of puny bombs that were developed for the teeny bomb bays of F-22 and F-35 and it would be unwise for India to go down that route, or worse - buy the damn things. i have not veered from that and will not veer from that no mater how much you fluff up your posts.

I guess, lets end this since its rather pointless to go back and forth. Lets agree to disagree!!

If it took you this long to figure out that we need to agree to disagree - my compliments to you. Better late than never. The goalpost remains exactly where it was so no need to make sour grapes out of snake oil. Not my problem if you get upset every time the F-35 and its puny bombs are criticized and make a humongous post in reaction. Not sure why it should bother you since you say I am the only person in the world saying that. Are you worried that others may wake up to what I am saying and see the light?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jul 2015 19:52

Imagine that there had been no stealth fighters. Then there would have been no SDBs to fit into teeny bomb bays. Now that air forces are willing to forgo stealth for other benefits, those SDBs developed for the F-22 and F-35 will last as long as customers get all the AWACS, GPS and other data support to bash pipsqueak third world countries credited with fictional capabilities, so long as they don't have to fight any serious wars against US allies with nuclear weapons. That's about it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 11 Jul 2015 19:56

Let's call off the SDB discussion. It has gone on long enough with both parties stating their points over and over again in multiple topics.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Jul 2015 19:57

Shiv - replied in the international thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1868634#p1868634

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2015 23:46

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

You've managed to dodge the question entirely.

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

(No satellite. No JSTARS. No drones. No AWACS.)

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

Yes, there was a time when we couldn't afford to equip the bulk of our forces with even the bare basics - infantry with BPJs, tanks with NVGs/TIs and strike jets with LGBs. So what? That wasn't because the forces were entirely staffed with Luddites.

Viv S wrote:Also, in light of your 'limited weapons bay' argument, perhaps you would care to explain why the Rafale is being integrated with the AASM-125, the Eurofighter with the (Brimstone-based) SPEAR III, the Gripen C with the SDB I, and the F-15E, Super Hornet, F-16 & Gripen E with the SDB II. That's seven different fighter types, none of which have internal weapons bays.
Correct. Any of these aircraft can carry more of almost any bomb than the F-35 or F-22. The SDB need not have existed if it was not for the puny bomb bays of the F-22 and F-35. That puny bomb exists only because of these two aircraft and is now being promoted like its the best thing after Apple pie or whatever it is Americans think is best

You've dodged the question yet again.

If a 125kg/250lb weapon is only suitable for the F-22 & F-35 (and presumably the AMCA) type useless fighters, why is it being integrated on seven different aircraft spanning a wide range of weight classes?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 11 Jul 2015 23:47

Reposted in International Aerospace thread.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Jul 2015 03:03

If the IAF gets its hands on SDBs allowing them to target 30 odd targets in a single Su-30 sortie, they'll be very pleased. NOt everything requires a 500 kg bomb.

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 12 Jul 2015 05:43

Absolutely, SDB is a fantastic weapon. To say SDB was developed to fit into teeny bomb bays of F-35s and F-22 is all but silly, couldn't be further away from the truth. SDB allows for all fighters to utilize the stations better and the weapon can be used against a variety of targets. It also has a good range, India should develop such weapons or order SDB for the LCA, Mirages, Jags and make in India with adaptions including G3OM for better guidance. Even the LCA should be able to carry at least 8 of these + 2 BVR + 2 WVR +1200L Centerline fuel tank or 12 weapons without the tank. A SDB rack with 4 bombs weighs 664 kg. LCA has 5 stations that can deploy this kind of weight. LCA can level a large training camp in a strike mission from with in our own borders armed with 2 WVR + 20 SDB i.e. all 5 stations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2015 06:19

Septimus P and KaranM, the topic worth exploring for this thread is if SU-30MKIs have used the Litening pod to deliver dumb bombs of the 110-120 kg genre? and what was the accuracy?

We know Mig 27s delivered 500 kg dumb bombs with 15 m accuracy from ~10 km release distance per a video in Livefist blog.

Second we know LCA can deliver the 500 kg series. Can they carry the dual payload adapters used on Su-30 MKI?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Jul 2015 20:56

In the video below the Su-30, at 4:11 does a Cobra in which the angle of attack exceeds 90 degrees - maybe 100 or 110 degrees and then it recovers. What is remarkable is how forgiving the engines are to such airflow disruptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQXN55T6LM

Here is a screen grab of the maneuver

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2015 22:47

ramana wrote:Septimus P and KaranM, the topic worth exploring for this thread is if SU-30MKIs have used the Litening pod to deliver dumb bombs of the 110-120 kg genre? and what was the accuracy?

We know Mig 27s delivered 500 kg dumb bombs with 15 m accuracy from ~10 km release distance per a video in Livefist blog

The Su-30 performance would be equivalent or better. Both MiG-27 Upg and Su-30 MKI have the same RLG-INS and Litening (if required).
Su-30 also has an integrated Autopilot w/FBW so a plus, but basically the systems on both platforms are same. Su-30s can even do carpet bombing.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8951/su30mki12.jpg

With the integrated nav attack system itself that can do some serious damage. Note no Litening, i.e. no need for it.

At Red Flag Su-30s operated with Litening, indicating PGM practise with self designation capability and possible night attack profiles.

BTW, at Iron Fist, Su-30 MKI dropped Griffin LGB designated by UAV (independent designation). BTW guess which aircraft demoed this capability first, before Su-30 MKI! The MiG-27 Upg.

Basically the DARIN-2, MiG-27 Upg and Su-30 MKI will have similar capabilities, only that the Su is a class apart in terms of payload range combos and overall fight to target capability.

Here are IAF videos - as you can see a wide range of dumb bombs integrated with Su-30.
http://indianairforce.nic.in/show_vayushakti.php

srin · Post by **srin** » 13 Jul 2015 22:54

Does the Sukhoi use OLS for laser designation in lieu of litening pod ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2015 23:16

srin wrote:Does the Sukhoi use OLS for laser designation in lieu of litening pod ?

It can, but in a dive and with Russian munitions for sure. Doubt whether it will be compatible with our third party kit. Pics exist of Su30 launching Kh-29 in dive with Litening. Whether OLS or Litening was used for guidance is unclear.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Jul 2015 23:22

Griffin with Litening. Backup? IAF description noted UAV desig.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 4.jpg.html

Multiple Sus with Litening
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... 8.jpg.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Jul 2015 10:06

In the recent conflicts were the US was heavily involved,one lasting even beyond the span of the Vietnam War,the intensity of the conflict found that the usage of smart munitions rose dramatically esp. in the first days of the conflict. The US ran out of Tomahawaks, etc. very fast.Apart from the cost,the production capacity of ordnance factories manufacturing these smart munitions needs to be factored in. Can they produce in a couple of weeks an entire year's production which for argument's sake has been expended? We are then left with "dumb" munitions,of which stocks generally are plentiful. But in our case from some recent exposes,we seem to be short of ammo,munitions across the board,allowing us to fight intensely only for a few weeks. So our frontline aircraft like the Flankers will have to carry both smart and dumb bombs,hopefully cheap kits for dumb bombs will be plentiful.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Jul 2015 14:15

Philip wrote:In the recent conflicts were the US was heavily involved,one lasting even beyond the span of the Vietnam War,the intensity of the conflict found that the usage of smart munitions rose dramatically esp. in the first days of the conflict. The US ran out of Tomahawaks, etc. very fast.

Never happened.

Apart from the cost,the production capacity of ordnance factories manufacturing these smart munitions needs to be factored in. Can they produce in a couple of weeks an entire year's production which for argument's sake has been expended?

They can't produce an entire year's worth of dumb bombs in a couple of weeks either.

We are then left with "dumb" munitions,of which stocks generally are plentiful. But in our case from some recent exposes,we seem to be short of ammo,munitions across the board,allowing us to fight intensely only for a few weeks. So our frontline aircraft like the Flankers will have to carry both smart and dumb bombs,hopefully cheap kits for dumb bombs will be plentiful.

Any future conventional war will only last a few weeks, if that. The stocks of front-line aircraft like the Flankers will be diminished by the end, to say nothing of their munition stockpiles.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2015 17:00

Septimus P. wrote:Absolutely, SDB is a fantastic weapon. To say SDB was developed to fit into teeny bomb bays of F-35s and F-22 is all but silly, couldn't be further away from the truth..

From Aviation week, for the sceptics
http://aviationweek.com/awin/f-35-bay-p ... es-weapons

Introduction of the Boeing GBU-39 Small-Diameter Bomb, a 250-lb. glide weapon, is slated for the Block IV software release at the end of the decade. This weapon was developed by the Air Force specifically to maximize the number of ground targets that the F-35, with its limited internal-bay space, can attack on a single mission; four SDBs can be mounted in place of each JDAM position, allowing for the F-35 and F-22 to each carry eight of the weapons internally. The SDB II, a version incorporating a tri-mode seeker for all-weather, day/night engagements, is now being developed by Raytheon. The first units will be delivered for operational use in 2016

And for those who believe Carlo Kopp talks sense
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.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 18:02

shiv wrote:
Septimus P. wrote:Absolutely, SDB is a fantastic weapon. To say SDB was developed to fit into teeny bomb bays of F-35s and F-22 is all but silly, couldn't be further away from the truth..
From Aviation week, for the sceptics
http://aviationweek.com/awin/f-35-bay-p ... es-weapons
Introduction of the Boeing GBU-39 Small-Diameter Bomb, a 250-lb. glide weapon, is slated for the Block IV software release at the end of the decade. This weapon was developed by the Air Force specifically to maximize the number of ground targets that the F-35, with its limited internal-bay space, can attack on a single mission; four SDBs can be mounted in place of each JDAM position, allowing for the F-35 and F-22 to each carry eight of the weapons internally. The SDB II, a version incorporating a tri-mode seeker for all-weather, day/night engagements, is now being developed by Raytheon. The first units will be delivered for operational use in 2016
And for those who believe Carlo Kopp talks sense
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.

We need a little more research before we post.

The Aviation week article is from 2012, so it is WAY behind the curve.

The Kopp article (as usual) was first written in 2007 (when there was no SDB II I think) and then updated 2/3 times.

"SDB" itself was first mooted around 2002, went into service in 2006 and has been fitted onto many air crafts:

On a F-15 Eagle.

I recall reading about a "small bomb" that had a warhead of around 14 lbs (why 14 and not 15, always beat me) warhead. Bomblets?

Point being "small" bombs had nothing to do with the bay size of these stealth planes, although the size did influence the smallness. Anything that these two planes need will be influenced by the bay size, but that does not mean that the bay size is THE determining factor. It is one factor that the vendors will cater to (because of making money - who does not?).

Even without the F-22/35, these bombs would have got smaller - just because the sensors have got better and the planes could carry more bombs, thus get to more targets.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 18:11

Even in the Aviation week quote:

This weapon was developed by the Air Force specifically to maximize the number of ground targets that the F-35, with its limited internal-bay space, can attack on a single mission

The operative word has to be "maximize". The smaller the bomb, more the targets. BUT that did not mean that they could not fit a "small" bomb into the bay. Just that the ratio was between one "small" bomb and umpteen "smaller" bombs.

But that ration would have held, as an example, with the F-15 too. And, why not? The idea after all should be to target as many as possible in one sortie.

I think the F-22/35 is a special case, but not one that is a target case. In that they did not design the small bomb for these two planes and THEN fit them to the rest.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2015 19:06

NRao wrote:In that they did not design the small bomb for these two planes and THEN fit them to the rest.

I have seen no credible information that what you say is right. The need to fit "more bombs" in the F-22/35 planes put a maximum length/breadth limit on the bomb. And because of this size limit, the explosive power was limited. And because of explosive power limitation the accuracy had to be made much better than the 10-15 meter CEP of other heavier PGMs

I don't really care what the US designs for itself. If we develop a light and accurate bomb we need not be held down by the rigid size restriction of the SDB - 70 inches long - some 4 inches wide and 20 kg of explosive needing better than 2 meter CEP (compared to 5-8 meters of SDB I)

We could have a bomb with 100 or 150 kg explosive that is overall 2 meters long. and weighs maybe 250 kg overall and try and achieve a 10 meter CEP. Despite the vehement denial and anger of cognitive dissonance that I see, the SDB was stunted at birth because of the F-22/35's bomb bays. The fact that the same bomb will be carried by other aircraft does not change the fact that it is stunted from birth.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 19:58

Boeing :: Small Diameter Bomb

Small Diameter Bomb

The Small Diameter Bomb, or SDB, has a long range and a compact size, which allows aircraft to carry more of the munition and prosecute targets at long distances with low collateral damage.

As you can see (in the chart below) the SBD varies in size. Nothing stunted about it.

The question one must pose: Would the SBD exist without the F-22? Clearly I think it would. And the reason being: "carry more" (size - small), "prosecute targetS" (great sensors - the new ones have more sensors packed into them) and "low collateral damage" (small warheads due to better CEP).

Did the F-22 influence the size, absolutely, as it must. Did it dictate it, I do not think so, for as I said, it would have existed without the F-22. Or looking at it in a diff way, if the SBD did not fit the F-22 what would they do? I think they would have gone ahead and not fitted a F-22 with it.

Technical Specifications

Joint Direct Attack Munition

Length 92.7 in to 152.7 in
Weight 552 lbs to 2,139 lbs
Diameter 17 in to 25.3 in

Small Diameter Bomb

Length 71 in to 143 in
Weight 285 lbs to 1,460 lbs
Diameter 7.5 in to 16 in

Harpoon

Length 152 in to 182 in
Weight 1,160 lbs to 1,523 lbs
Diameter 13.5 in

Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response

Length 172 in
Weight 1,473 lbs
Diameter 13.5 in

Twice the length, nearly 5 times the weight and twice the diameter. Wish they had provided the distance, but I assume it remains a constant or there abouts.

SBD.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2015 20:00

NRao wrote: Small Diameter Bomb

Length 71 in to 143 in
Weight 285 lbs to 1,460 lbs
Diameter 7.5 in to 16 in

Harpoon

Length 152 in to 182 in
Weight 1,160 lbs to 1,523 lbs
Diameter 13.5 in

Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response

Length 172 in
Weight 1,473 lbs
Diameter 13.5 in

~~Source?~~

Ok saw it. This conflicts will all other information I have seen. 750 kg and 13 inches are hardly "small diameter". Sounds like a scam to me.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 20:03

Gave it to you in my post. Boeing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 20:11

NRao? What 'distance' you are asking for?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 20:13

Sounds like a scam to me.

Looks like a lot of things look like that to you. Turkey, albatross, Inglish, SBD, foreign pharma, ...................

OK. Fine.

Let us move on.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 20:15

ramana wrote:NRao? What 'distance' you are asking for?

I believe SBD (I) is about 60 miles and SBD II is about 45 miles (with a much higher CEP).

So, it would have been nice to add that critical data point.

May be I have to dig more. It ought to be out there. Somewhere.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Jul 2015 20:19

NRao wrote:
Sounds like a scam to me.
Looks like a lot of things look like that to you. Turkey, albatross, Inglish, SBD, foreign pharma, ...................

OK. Fine.

Let us move on.

Certainly a more gracious reaction than anger.

Technically Boeing designed SDB I with GPS guidance alone. I have not been able to find an image of a 750 Kg 13 inch "small" diameter bomb.

The SDB that is getting so much attention (B2 can carry 200 or was it 200,000 of them) is Raytheon's SDB II with triple guidance GPS, MMW and IR with LOAL capability.

But I have no objection to a 750 kg 13 inch diameter "small" diameter bomb. It is the puny 120 kg one with 70 inch length and 20 kg warhead that gets my goat. We need to be clear about what "SDB" means

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Jul 2015 20:32

"War" has changed - even in the past decade+.

It WILL change even further. And, most of us are not even prepared for it.

As an example, we have seen the "war" becoming more and more PC. Guess what, check out a field called Cognitive Dominance, where the future (senior) soldier WILL be trained as a diplomat too. This ball is rolling and India is up there in this area.

Add to that "network", the ability to call-back, etc and now you have a totally diff set of criteria to fight a "war".

I do see India navigating all these areas on her own. She will borrow as and when required, will be influenced for sure, but will influence others too.

Ways to go, but that ball has started rolling.

#NextGen

So, I would not worry about nomenclatures. They have little meaning. It is how you train a war fighter and what tools - not necessarily destructive ones - you provide them with.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jul 2015 21:39

The 1967 ~~Five~~ Six Day war where Israel achieved air superiority with preemptive strikes on Egypt's airfields: open storage of airplanes and runway busting, changed the way air forces the world over operate.
Now emphasis is on hardened air shelters(HAS) and multiple runways for air planes to take off. Also quick setting concrete.

The solution to HAS defeat was the bunker buster bomb aka I-2000.

Isaac Newton showed to defeat a barrier two things are required: slender projectiles(L/D ~10) and dense projectiles with respect to medium being breached (d1/d2).

Now high strength steel for projectiles limits your density to that of steel. So the other variable is slenderness ratio or L/D. So long projectiles can penetrate better.

BTW, British had a requirement that their cast steel bombs don't shatter when dropped from some height! Look up Google mama on British GP/MC bomb.

Gulf War I and II showed large bunker busters are not needed. Reason is due to confined space in the HAS it needs smaller qty of explosives.
So long slender projectiles with good guidance and wing kits for standoff are a design solution.

Also hit with the highest velocity achievable. I firmly believe in big Mo: Momentum that is!

Added advantage is more targets can be attacked and increases the strike sortie efficacy.

------
In Indian context the IAF relies on laser pods for ranging and flight computer to achieve 15m accuracy from 10-15km standoff for dumb bombs.
If adversaries acquires dense long range air defences (SAMs in plenty), then there is a need for more range for these ordnance.

India already has a 250lb ordnance which if the stats are right would need less than the 15m accuracy due to less blast effect.

I don't know how many HAS, TSP has that need to be defeated with bunker busters.

Gagan can work on this!!!

In my limited understanding there is a role for SDB to take out shelters as many more can be carried.
SJha had reported there was a DRDO program for this.

Basically its like putting a wing + tail kit and guidance on a drill pipe filled with explosives.

Drill pipes use high fracture resistant steel!
-----

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Jul 2015 06:08

Ramana, with the advent of glide munitions you don't really require huge bombs. You could simply guide the munition through the front door. The result will be a destroyed aircraft.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Jul 2015 06:31

ramana wrote:
In my limited understanding there is a role for SDB to take out shelters as many more can be carried.
SJha had reported there was a DRDO program for this.

Basically its like putting a wing + tail kit and guidance on a drill pipe filled with explosives.

-----

ramana I can't repeat often enough that the real problem is in ensuring accuracy of less than 3 meters from standoff ranges for SDBs

SDBs from the US currently come with a guidance augmentation kit (cost US $ 700,000 per kit, one kit per "area of operation") that has to be installed near the area of operation to increase accuracy. It adds a few decimal places to the accuracy of GPS. I am not sure if SDB IIs are in service yet. they can hit moving targets but some system (AWACS or drone) is required to track that target and update the bomb guidance

The bombs, the guidance infrastructure and the guidance kit need to work together. In the absence of that extra accuracy the SDB is only as accurate as current guidance systems used even by the IAF and SDBs really have a very small explosive content,

Bunkers are only one aspect of targets. We have area targets, bases, factories, ammunition dumps, massed armour, vehicles, trains, bridges, airfields and soft targets like radar sites for which super-accurate SDBs can be used but offer no cost advantage over heavier bombs and the latter being cheaper they can be used in twos rather than the over hyped one-shot one kill.(Even SDBs need repeat shots). Given the limited loiter time of our aircraft the ability of various Indian aircraft to carry 8 or 16 x 250 Kg class smart munitions would give one flight of 4 aircraft the formidable ability to attack 15 to 30 targets with two bombs each.

The US fights wars at such long ranges that they would prefer an aircraft to loiter for a couple of hours carrying more bombs. We need to see if this is our requirement and where our aircraft would loiter and be refuelled in the air for that purpose. That scenario does not exist for us over China or Pakistan. At best we can do it over the Indian Ocean - a niche requirement against Pakistan which offers targets within striking range from the Indian mainland

What we have to worry about is Pakis getting SDBs and our hardened shelters are toast if they are fed data in wartime by Pakistani patriots like Chuck Yeager. From yesterday we need to be looking at methods to defeat SDB attacks on our bunkers and aircraft hangars from our adversaries who will get those bombs soon.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jul 2015 09:26

NR ,never happened!

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/06/opini ... round.html

Not Enough Cruise Missiles to Go Around?
By Lawrence J. Korb

Published: April 6, 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawrence J. Korb, the director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration.

Shiv some details of US "dumb bomb experience".

The air war also carried some practical lessons. One was offensive. Before the war, the Navy had concentrated on providing its F/A-18 Hornet attack aircraft with bomb fire control systems so good that they could regularly place bombs within a 30-foot circle. On that basis it drastically limited purchases of smart bombs. The theory was that a bomber could not return to a carrier with a full bomb load aboard; it would have to jettison any unused bombs into the sea. That meant one thing for cheap “dumb” bombs, and quite another for a pricey laser-guided weapon. During the war, it became clear that even the accuracy afforded by the computer fire control system could not suffice. For example, when attacking bridges, it was vital to hit the precise point on the roadway over a supporting member of the bridge structure. Otherwise the roadway might well be holed, but the bridge would not fall. It took a laser designator to do this job. With the war over, the Navy began buying laser-guided bombs in much greater quantities, and it is now modifying GPS-guided bombs with terminal seekers for even better accuracy. In so doing, it is accepting that aircraft will carry many fewer bombs, few enough so that they can land back on their carriers with their loads.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stor ... -gulf-war/

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2015 14:33

shiv wrote:
Technically Boeing designed SDB I with GPS guidance alone. I have not been able to find an image of a 750 Kg 13 inch "small" diameter bomb.

The SDB that is getting so much attention (B2 can carry 200 or was it 200,000 of them) is Raytheon's SDB II with triple guidance GPS, MMW and IR with LOAL capability.

But I have no objection to a 750 kg 13 inch diameter "small" diameter bomb. It is the puny 120 kg one with 70 inch length and 20 kg warhead that gets my goat. We need to be clear about what "SDB" means

The SDBI has been designed with differential GPS and INS. In case of a GPS degraded environment the bomb uses INS to get to its target. As the DEMVAL test has shown, it has been tried against GPS jamming and has held to a 2m CEP in such as case during one particular test. As the program leader was quoted, the aimed for a 4m CEP with this program and the result is lower.. (GPS/INS). Same thing with the GPS guided JDAM. The original was to have a CEP of 13m or so back in the day when the kits were conceived..Through upgrades and better technology, even a decade back the CEP was tested to be between 4 and 5 meters (Janes IDS articles quoted officials on this and they are in the International thread).

Boeing completed SDB development testing in September 2005. In development testing, 37 SDBs were released against fixed targets. Thirty-five weapons were successful, each hitting within an average of 1.1 m from its surveyed target aim-point. Key tests included the single-pass release of four bombs against four separate targets, at a range of 37 km. The weapon demonstrated its range in May with an 88 km flight from an altitude of 30,000 feet, hitting within 85 cm of its target. In a test with effective GPS jamming in May, a bomb flew 56 km and landed within 2 m of its designated impact point, using its inertial measurement unit and onboard logic to overcome jamming ~ A different kind of smart: weapons becoming autonomous and precise - December/2005 , Janes International Defense Review

The JDAM concept has worked better than expected. The initial specification called for a CEP of 13m, but tests have demonstrated an average CEP of 4.9m. ~ The Falling Price of Precision - Janes/August-2002

shiv wrote:SDBs from the US currently come with a guidance augmentation kit (cost US $ 700,000 per kit, one kit per "area of operation") that has to be installed near the area of operation to increase accuracy.

The ASI is an improvement and enhancement for the most accurate drops and the SDB makes use of it due to its differential GPS targeting, something that will surely wind up even in the future JDAM kits. All it utilizes is a theater based deployed (no need to deploy if you are fighting from home, so it can be a fixed thing) system and uses the same data links that are currently onboard each and every US and NATO aircraft and that have been employed into the current block SDB's. Regardless of the ASI, the official operational evaluation (IOT&E) of the SDBI claims -

The ASI system provided incremental guidance accuracy improvements, but did not enhance nor detract from overall effectiveness or lethality.

^ That is a typical DG style of reporting..What it means is " Sure the system made the drop more accurate, but the system was effective even without it, so as per the bureaucrat running the test it has a questionable utility.

Also not that the ASI system even at the price you quoted above cost less than one single JSOW-C and is theater deployed not aircaft deployed..Given the price of the SDBI (40,-50K) and the volume in which it will be used given production volumes (24,000 as per my last check for the I alone) the price per target impact of the ASI is miniscule...especially when you factor in that you can drop multiple bombs without having to RTB due to magazine depletion.

And if you do wish to deploy the ASI even the theater "size" is something that is provided..And do note that differential GPS and the accuracy acheived through it is not going to be SDBI exclusive for long, it would/should be incorporated into most GPS weapons such as the JDAM family kits...

SRI International provides the support infrastructure for the small diameter bomb. Wide area differential GPS ground stations correct errors in the satellite-based navigation system and transmit the corrections to authorized users. The ground stations can be located up to 1,500 miles apart. “We plan to have them delivered as part of the overall system capability,” said McClendon. If, for any reason, the advanced support infrastructure is not available, the SDB will achieve JDAM accuracy with the GPS constellation alone.

^ The last underlined bit is important. The official (independent of the program office) IOT&E found that the SDB could accomplish its mission even without the ASI.

Also, about diff. GPS and the ASI, the same article -

This technology will be integrated into the joint direct attack munition with the next JDAM software drop, and it may find broader use. “It gets more weapons effectiveness for us, but it is not a closed system,” said McClendon. “We’re making this available to other Defense Department users.”

^^ That article is about 11 years old. The state of the art shifts in that time, and all PGM's even those already delivered get upgrades that keep up with technology

GPS/GLONASS/IRNSS etc type systems will no doubt exploit the advancement in technology to make GPS guided munitions and targeting more accurate. An operator that does put a sizable investment into GPS guided or aided munitions would be dumb to not also exploit technology areas that make the same munitions more accurate as the technology advances and allows it to do so. If you can cut your CEP in half by simply using a deployable ASI that helps all your GPS weapons, and costs $700K per system with systems spread 1500 nm apart, you would be dumb not to invest in that if it does indeed provide the capability. We are talking about aircraft's that cost between 70 Million and higher, munitions that range from a simple $25,000 JDAM Kit to a $40,000 SDBI all the way up to million dollar munitions that also use GPS..One peak at the amount of PGM's deployed during OIF or even in the 90's in GW, and once can see how advantageous it would be to have GPS improved accuracy given the overall cost of these PGM's. Its a no-brainer!

The SDBI and SDBII share the same launcher and the same number can be carried. The advantage of the SDBI over II is the cost and slightly longer range. The advantage of the SDBII is that it is likely to many times more accurate, with 1m CEP being pretty doable (since Laser guided bombs are close to or at that) and can attack moving targets. How it targets a moving target? Many ways, at medium to shorter ranges you can use your L4, SniperXR, or EOTS to pick moving targets..All three of these sensors have some very good range..Furthermore, you can have the target designated through the ground and fed into the bomb prior to release. It like the Rafael Spice 250, has a discriminating ability against similar or different targets. Of course the range against a moving target would not be 50+ nautical miles, but it need not be for 99% of the targets where its usually the sensor on the aircraft that picks and tracks these sort of threats.

Did the F-22 influence the size, absolutely, as it must. Did it dictate it, I do not think so, for as I said, it would have existed without the F-22. Or looking at it in a diff way, if the SBD did not fit the F-22 what would they do? I think they would have gone ahead and not fitted a F-22 with it.

The F-22 like a lot of the aircraft was an "Objective" platform for the SDB, not a threshold platform. The F-15E was the threshold. Basically, as you pass Milestone C and wind up OPEVAL, the size of the full scale of production and eventual procurement is determined by the results of the OPEVAL. If OPEVAL shows marginal effectiveness and barely meets spec or actually calls for spec reduction due to non-performance issues then the production is cut and objective platforms moved to the right (timeline) or cancelled outright. Basically its the final decision on the number of weapons to be procured that determines the number of platforms that can carry it. No need to certify it on the entire fleet if all you are buying is a few thousand. The SDBI is going through its list of objective platforms and on last check had been certified on at least half of them by FY2014.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jul 2015 19:39

@ Phillip - Replied here -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1870548#p1870548

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2015 19:39

Shiv, I think with terminal seekers such ordnance will be effective.

Till now IAF has relied on laser range finding and pilot bravery to rely on dumb bombs. From Iraq & Afghan Wars experience, PGMs are the way forward.

USN's 30 feet is 10m accuracy. And that is close but no cigar.

We need to think of killing them dead and not wounding.
Why don't we go back to Gagan's thread and look at number of Hardened Air shelters at Sargodha, Dalbandin and Masroor for starters? And resume the argument here.

brar-w, Please post all your PGM related posts in a new thread on "US PGM experience".

Would like to cover Desert Storm I , Mini campaign in late 90s (4 day strike by USN) and Gulf War II. Add Afghan War also.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jul 2015 14:47

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jul 2015 16:48

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/22/in ... yed-to-uk/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jul 2015 12:54

Pictures Su-35 production

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1398432.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jul 2015 20:56

MKI+Typhoon Video ( via keypub )

https://video-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvide ... e=55B3C79C