Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 pm

    Luq man wrote:Guided glide bomb with range up to 120km tested onboard Su-34
    Nice pics:
    https://en.ppt-online.org/345832
    Nice presentation, thanks! This are the Grom PGMs from what I see
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12239
    Points : 12718
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:05 am

    More here:

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3241663.html

    it is offered in 3 versions


    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:46 pm


    As said some years ago the distinctive feature of this new class of gliding bombs is the unmatched destructive potential.

    https://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2018/june/4348-ktrv-advances-grom-air-to-surface-missile-acceptance-trials.html

    https://en.ppt-online.org/345832


    Somebody suggest to compare those glide bombs with GBU-39 SDB, those unpowered US bombs show surely lower size and mass (130 kg against the 487/594 kg of 9A2/A1-7759) but the destructive power of each GBU-39 is enormously lower (17 kg of explosive for GBU-39 against the over 200 kg for 9A1-7759, that for remain silent of the 9A2-7759 with a fuel-air warhead with the destructive potential of over 2 KAB-500OD !!).

    Obviously this enormous difference in destructive potential and radius of assured destruction between the two systems do not only allow the destruction of all those targets totally out of possibility for GBU-39 class but also to assure with an high degree of chances to destroy targets even in highly jammed or multi-band obscurant saturated environment.




    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:41 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    As said some years ago the distinctive feature of this new class of gliding bombs is the unmatched destructive potential.

    https://airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-defense-security-news/global-news-2018/june/4348-ktrv-advances-grom-air-to-surface-missile-acceptance-trials.html

    https://en.ppt-online.org/345832


    Somebody suggest to compare those glide bombs with GBU-39 SDB, those unpowered US bombs show surely lower size and mass (130 kg against the 487/594 kg of 9A2/A1-7759) but the destructive power of each GBU-39 is enormously lower (17 kg of explosive for GBU-39 against the over 200 kg for 9A1-7759, that for remain silent of the  9A2-7759 with a fuel-air warhead with the destructive potential of over 2 KAB-500OD !!).

    Obviously this enormous difference in destructive potential and radius of assured destruction between the two systems do not only allow the destruction of all those targets totally out of possibility for GBU-39 class but also to assure with an high degree of chances to destroy targets even in highly jammed or multi-band obscurant saturated environment.  

    As far as I understand it, the SDB allows a fighter to attack a significant number of targets with the internally carried weapons or to saturate a single one, the advantage of PGM is precisely that explosive load does not need to be big to be effective, at least in principle. Is an analogue to the SDB not being pursued by Russia? With the dimensions of the US product, a PAK-FA could carry 16 bombs internally, this could be useful for example against well defended SAM sites.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1153
    Points : 1153
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Hole on Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:25 am

    With 17 kg of explosives you can´t even destroy a small house. And the saturation is BS because the main target of air defence will be the plane. The SDB is really expensive for its size and that´s the main point of its development. Money to the MIC.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:12 pm

    LMFS wrote:As far as I understand it, the SDB allows a fighter to attack a significant number of targets with the internally carried weapons or to saturate a single one, the advantage of PGM is precisely that explosive load does not need to be big to be effective, at least in principle.


    An F-35, of any type, will carry internally at maximum 8 GBU-39 (130 kg each) , a single Су-57 will carry 4 9A1/A2-7759 bombs (about 500-600 kg each) the difference is that the latter weapon boast on average 14 times the explosive amount and even more destructive potential.

    The average CEP of GBU-39 in a jamming free environment (without the Accuracy Support Infrastructure -ASI - that would be obviously totally unavailable in the attack against any advanced enemy) is about 5-8 m (50% of SDB will fall within this radius ) therefore taking into account its warhead potential , in absence of the ground based ASI , it will be necessary to aim at least 4-5 GBU-39 against even the most soft targets -obviosly of limited size for the very limited warhead potential - to obtain an acceptable level of PK.
    It is not for a chance that all IOT tests of GBU-39 has been conducted with the presence of ASI.
    In a GPS signal jammed environment (or worse corrupted signal...) likely the entire GBU-39 internal loadout of an entire squadron of F-35 will be necessary to obtain an acceptable PK against a single limited size targets.

    A single Гром will completely obliterate (instead of merely damage in a repairable way) any target in its mean error for target radius with a probability next to one and a single A3 version , the version with the fuel-air warhead (obviously not mountable at all in the very limited volume of a GBU-39 warhead) will obtain against area targets what not even 3-4 F-35 can hope to obtain with internal loadout of GBU-39.  
     
    In a ГЛОНАСС jammed environment 3-4 Гром with only INS guidance will assure the complete large area destruction of the intended target, a truly enormous difference in efficiency against GBU-39.  

    GBU-39 was developed as cost-effective "low-collater damage" weapons for permissive environments (the typical COIN or regional conflict ,against third world enemies, wherein the US usually like to interfere and bully) but it would hardly find any real employment against sophisticated enemies .
     
    Also in the so called "COIN operations" ,such as also partially Syrian operation, the demand for increase warhead's potential is always growing to the point that majority of the most crucial and fast results are often achievable only employing warheads with high potential ; domestic high Command both of the Air Force that for Ground Forces in that operation has progressively employed warheads of ever growing potential also for high precise ammunitions (from 250 kg ,to 500, to FAE bombs to 1500 kg ones and from 100-120 mm caliber field guns to resurrection of 2S4 Tyulpan large employment of ТОС-1, УР-77 and locally developed Golan 1000)  observing a unproportionate increase of the results on the ground both in quantity and in speed of achievement.      

    US developers are absolutely aware of those problems to the point that at the cost of a sharp decrease of the engagement range and a equally big increase of the costs have integrated a multimode seeker to attempt to icrease PK in GPS jamming-free environment.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:18 pm

    @Hole: a maximum range of 110 km is stated for the SDB, therefore against short and medium range AD the bomb would indeed allow striking at stand-off distances and avoid putting the carrier at risk. A F-15 can carry 28 of those, so in absence of GPS jamming a single SAM system would be easily overwhelmed... at what cost is another issue but the SDB is not the most expensive weapon ($40,000 in 2006)

    @Mindstorm: great explanation, many thanks. Agree that the SDB looks intended specifically for COIN operations or low intensity conflicts, with the new version allowing strikes even against targets of opportunity in movement. Since high weapons costs have traditionally been rather an advantage for the MIC than a problem, such systems are pursued that allow enemy suppression with impunity even when the target (i.e. a technical of $30,000) costs way less than the weapon (SDB II $130,000). But facing a capable opponent the number of munitions needed for each target would be prohibitive
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2458
    Points : 2452
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Isos on Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:58 pm

    Hole: a maximum range of 110 km is stated for the SDB, therefore against short and medium range AD the bomb would indeed allow striking at stand-off distances and avoid putting the carrier at risk. A F-15 can carry 28 of those, so in absence of GPS jamming a single SAM system would be easily overwhelmed... at what cost is another issue but the SDB is not the most expensive weapon ($40,000 in 2006)

    No need to engage them. Just move. Glide bombs are good against fixed targets but against mobile ones not really. Mobility is a good defence against stand off weapons.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:14 am

    Isos wrote:No need to engage them. Just move. Glide bombs are good against fixed targets but against mobile ones not really. Mobility is a good defence against stand off weapons.
    See above, SDB II is specifically devised to attack mobile targets. So if you are not going to engage them, you need to see them coming soon enough before its seeker finds you.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:15 pm

    LMFS wrote:See above, SDB II is specifically devised to attack mobile targets. So if you are not going to engage them, you need to see them coming soon enough before its seeker finds you.


    The decision to engage the incoming munitions or instead evacuate and cover/masking is not taken by the potentially engaged vehicles but by the Division's air defense command ,those days in an almost authomatic way.

    Usually for unpowerd glide bombs like GBU-53 (up to 40 NM for high altitude supersonic delivery and naturally no 28 SDB bull....it loadout, unless you want to deliver merely from JDAM's ranges ) that, in order to achieve maximum engagement radius ,potentially in excess of some middle range/SHORAD systems must be delivered by aircraft proceeding at high altitude and high speed toward the targets , that situation can happen only against the parts of the ground forces that would be not directictly covered by medium and long range AD  (C-300V4, Бук-М3, for not taking into account defending Су-30-CM and Су-35 in facts would destroy the aircraft way before them would reach delivery point for its unpowerd ammunitions load).

    When direct coverage by part of middle/long range air defense and front line aircraft would be for any reason unavailable or insufficient  - usually that could happen for first lines of first echelon of ground forces in the offense - decision to retreat and search for coverage is taken authomatically by the air defense command when the following factors materialize :

    1) The data coming from active and passive sensor network ascertain that the contacts represent real munitions and not decoys and classification of theirs class, speed and mean time before arrival in the defended area confirm theirs potential danger for the targets in the area.  
    2) Amount of delivered AG munitions greatly exceed suppression/interception possibilities of all available EW and SHORAD systems    
    3) No multi-spectral area-masking equipment is available or its use is computed too risky (at example for the dense presence of enemy artillery or mechanized /armoured battallions in the area) or impossible to realize before the time of arrival of enemy weapons  (usually that can happen for high speed powered AG ammunitions).
    4) Only for new generation vehicles of the unified class Армата, Курганец-25 and Бумеранг if the algorithm for the unified AD command compute that average surviving AG munitions after EW and SHORAD would be enough to cause operationally relevant damages to those vehicles after action of both soft and active defense mounted on each of those vehicles .

    Only when all those requisites are realized (unified AD program usually compute the result of the interaction of those variables in few seconds) an immediate order for retreat, dispersal and cover until communication of air attack's cessation is uttered to all troops in the areas potentially attacked togheter with overall direction of the incoming munitions and expected time of the arrival.

    At this point all troops and vehicles (including eventual AD ones ) quickly disperse and retreat toward covering elements (usually ,where present in respect to the overall direction of the incoming AG munitions, behind buildings or hard landscape elements ) while all those capable deliver and saturate the area with smoke screens from exausts that would interfere with eventual optical man-in-the-loop guidance (like that usually chosen by Israeli mutions designers) and in the last dozen of seconds before computed arrival of the munitions all vehicles with the necessary equipment, deliver in the area multispectral aerosol to interfere with terminal radar/IR guidance.


    As seen the operational use of unpowered glide bombs with a so high unitary cost and so low warhead's power - an element that above all what already said previously, will make a truly huge difference when soft and hard kill vehicles active defense systems will become standard among armoured vehicles - not only would have hardly any sense against any advanced enemy because effectively not employable at all against target with medium/long range AD/EW systems or frontal aviation coverage ,but would be also highly questionable even against enemies devoid of that coverage.


    In facts in order only to plan a similar attack against those relatively "undefended" targets you must anyhow commit, already from the beginning, an amount of those high cost AG munitions much higher that the capability of suppression /interception of the available battallion-level EW and SHORAD (and modern ones between ever growing missile and guns engagement range, speed and single interceptor's PK can destroy an absurdely high amount, above all against low-subsonic unpowered munitions) and when it would be realized the enemy would not respond wasting uselessly its interceptors but would simply utter the command to dispersw ,mask and cover its forces so that at the arrival of those munitions wide majority of the vehicles would be completely unfindable or not engageable behind buildings, hills, crevasses, canals, dense vegetations, tunnels, etc...,. while the others would be covered under deep screens of multispectral aerosols and EW action that would render GPS guidance and weapon uplinnk and third party update practically impossible.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:29 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    The decision to engage the incoming munitions or instead evacuate and cover/masking is not taken by the potentially engaged vehicles but by the Division's air defense command ,those days in an almost authomatic way.

    Usually for unpowerd glide bombs like GBU-53 (up to 40 NM for high altitude supersonic delivery and naturally no 28 SDB bull....it loadout, unless you want to deliver merely from JDAM's ranges ) that, in order to achieve maximum engagement radius ,potentially in excess of some middle range/SHORAD systems must be delivered by aircraft proceeding at high altitude and high speed toward the targets , that situation can happen only against the parts of the ground forces that would be not directictly covered by medium and long range AD  (C-300V4, Бук-М3, for not taking into account defending Су-30-CM and Су-35 in facts would destroy the aircraft way before them would reach delivery point for its unpowerd ammunitions load).

    When direct coverage by part of middle/long range air defense and front line aircraft would be for any reason unavailable or insufficient  - usually that could happen for first lines of first echelon of ground forces in the offense - decision to retreat and search for coverage is taken authomatically by the air defense command when the following factors materialize :

    1) The data coming from active and passive sensor network ascertain that the contacts represent real munitions and not decoys and classification of theirs class, speed and mean time before arrival in the defended area confirm theirs potential danger for the targets in the area.  
    2) Amount of delivered AG munitions greatly exceed suppression/ possibilities of all available EW and SHORAD systems    
    3) No multi-spectral area-masking equipment is available or its use is computed too risky (at example for the dense presence of enemy artillery or mechanized /armoured battallions in the area) or impossible to realize before the time of arrival of enemy weapons  (usually that can happen for high speed powered AG ammunitions).
    4) Only for new generation vehicles of the unified class Армата, Курганец-25 and Бумеранг if the algorithm for the unified AD command compute that average surviving AG munitions after EW and SHORAD would be enough to cause operationally relevant damages to those vehicles after action of both soft and active defense mounted on each of those vehicles .

    Only when all those requisites are realized (unified AD program usually compute the result of the interaction of those variables in few seconds) an immediate order for retreat, dispersal and cover until communication of air attack's cessation is uttered to all troops in the areas potentially attacked togheter with overall direction of the incoming munitions and expected time of the arrival.

    At this point all troops and vehicles (including eventual AD ones ) quickly disperse and retreat toward covering elements (usually ,where present in respect to the overall direction of the incoming AG munitions, behind buildings or hard landscape elements ) while all those capable deliver and saturate the area with smoke screens from exausts that would interfere with eventual optical man-in-the-loop guidance (like that usually chosen by Israeli mutions designers) and in the last dozen of seconds before computed arrival of the munitions all vehicles with the necessary equipment, deliver in the area multispectral aerosol to interfere with terminal radar/IR guidance.


    As seen the operational use of unpowered glide bombs with a so high unitary cost and so low warhead's power - an element that above all what already said previously, will make a truly huge difference when soft and hard kill vehicles active defense systems will become standard among armoured vehicles - not only would have hardly any sense against any advanced enemy because effectively not employable at all against target with medium/long range AD/EW systems or frontal aviation coverage ,but would be also highly questionable even against enemies devoid of that coverage.


    In facts in order only to plan a similar attack against those relatively "undefended" targets you must anyhow commit, already from the beginning, an amount of those high cost AG munitions much higher that the capability of suppression /interception of the available battallion-level EW and SHORAD (and modern ones between ever growing missile and guns engagement range, speed and single interceptor's PK can destroy an absurdely high amount, above all against low-subsonic unpowered munitions) and when it would be realized the enemy would not respond wasting uselessly its interceptors but would simply utter the command to dispersw ,mask and cover its forces so that at the arrival of those munitions wide majority of the vehicles would be completely unfindable or not engageable behind buildings, hills, crevasses, canals, dense vegetations, tunnels, etc...,. while the others would be covered under deep screens of multispectral aerosols and EW action that would render GPS guidance and weapon uplinnk and third party update practically impossible.

    Great read, the arguments show those weapons are not effective in such an environment. The more I learn the clearer is to me how Western militaries have shaped themselves towards interventionism and less towards facing the threat of near-peer rivals. This proves first and foremost that they don't even believe in the possibility of such countries actually attacking them, in total contradiction to the narratives spread by mass media.

    Any idea, when the 57 mm autocannons are going to be deployed in Russian military or if this is related to the news that ground AD was going to be renewed short term? If as you suggested, the use of these is going to be widespread in the army not only in AA-specific hardware but also in IFVs, BMPTs etc, it is easy to see that the PGM suppression limits of even conventional units would be so high that the use of SDBs would be completely ineffective. Would be interesting to see how F-35 is expected to perform strike roles in such conditions...
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  kvs on Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:19 pm

    The above discussion gives us an idea why NATO military production has such a great reputation. Various sub-par
    products are delivered regardless of their failings. The MIC contractors subsequently rape the taxpayer with upgrades
    that should have been there at the first product release.

    You see much less of this capitalist chicanery in Russia. So development programs are longer and the pre-adoption testing
    phase is longer. Surprisingly, the penalty in time is rather small (the time is not even increased by 50%). But that does
    not stop NATO fanbois bleating about endless Russian failure.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:28 am

    LMFS wrote:Any idea, when the 57 mm autocannons are going to be deployed in Russian military or if this is related to the news that ground AD was going to be renewed short term? If as you suggested, the use of these is going to be widespread in the army not only in AA-specific hardware but also in IFVs, BMPTs etc, it is easy to see that the PGM suppression limits of even conventional units would be so high that the use of SDBs would be completely ineffective.


    Likely within 2022-2023; in particular first batch will include only new 57 mm ammunitions with smart fuses, capable to destroy at middle range range both air targets (primarly PGMs and UAVs) and infantry in buildings and defilade, to be integrated in any vehicle, while special guided munitions with smart fuses, at now with letter O1, will follow briefly after and will equip air defense specialized vehicles.

    As explained the huge improvement in range offered by the 57 mm autocannons is the major feature of the new line - much more than the increased lethality - in facts this allow also not specialized ground vehicles to participate in the AD cover of the brigade ; thanks to the increased range of the 57 mm guns each of those vehicles will get the necessary time and chance for re-engage any incoming munition survivng the long range salvo an opportunity absent for 30 mm guns.

    Naturally the efficiency of the ammunitions with only smart fuses will be high at long range only against unpowered subsonic munitions ,in reason of the low speed and very limited capability to maneuver, while for more demanding targets ,such as high speed one with high capability to maneuver, the AD variant with guided ammunitions will be necessary to achieve high PK.

    The aim is to place an ever growing and multi-faceted burden on enemy designers, pushing them always more far in the cost-efficiency balance through the forced integration in each of of theirs offensive means of features terribly costly that can be countered at order of magnitude lower prices.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:39 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Likely within 2022-2023; in particular first batch will include only new 57 mm ammunitions with smart fuses, capable to destroy at middle range range both air targets (primarly PGMs and UAVs) and infantry in buildings and defilade, to be integrated in any vehicle, while special guided munitions with smart fuses, at now with letter O1, will follow briefly after and will equip air defense specialized vehicles.

    As explained the huge improvement in range offered by the 57 mm autocannons is the major feature of the new line - much more than the increased lethality - in facts this allow also not specialized ground vehicles to participate in the AD cover of the brigade ; thanks to the increased range of the 57 mm guns each of those vehicles will get the necessary time and chance for re-engage any incoming munition survivng the long range salvo an opportunity absent for 30 mm guns.

    Naturally the efficiency of the ammunitions with only smart fuses will be high at long range only against unpowered subsonic munitions ,in reason of the low speed and very limited capability to maneuver, while for more demanding targets ,such as high speed one with high capability to maneuver, the AD variant with guided ammunitions will be necessary to achieve high PK.

    The aim is to place an ever growing and multi-faceted burden on enemy designers, pushing them always more far in the cost-efficiency balance through the forced integration in each of of theirs offensive means of features terribly costly that can be countered at order of magnitude lower prices.

    Brilliant, how aggressor is left on the wrong side of cost structure through relatively inexpensive defensive measures.

    Thanks for the info on the 57 mm autocannons. I assume the smart fused ammo is the one called "MFS" in the drawing below and the "UAS" is the one intended for AD



    One doubt: SDBs can be launched apparently at 1,5 M. From terminal velocity simulations given their mass, section and conservative Cd estimation they could reach their target still at supersonic speed, is this a correct assumption? This, together with lack of rocket glare and small RCS would make them not "slow and easy" targets as far as I see...

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:46 pm

    LMFS wrote:SDBs can be launched apparently at 1,5 M. From terminal velocity simulations given their mass, section and conservative Cd estimation they could reach their target still at supersonic speed, is this a correct assumption?

    Obviously not, it is a totally wronged assumption : unpowered glide weapons (even those without the volumetric limits imposed by SDB design, with significantly more effcient aerodynamic layout, like 9-A-7759 series delivered at mach 1.5 speed in the trials) after deployment of the folding wings decelerate to subsonic speed within just few kilometers ; at the very edge of theirs envelop footprint those ammunitions would strike ,at best, at mid-subsonic speed.

    Take into account that just time of arrival to targets (in particular against moving or easily relocatable ones) has been the main reason behind UK MoD decision to reject the unpowered GBU-53 in favour of the powered SPEAR-3 for integration in theirs F-35s.


    LMFS wrote:together with lack of rocket glare and small RCS would make them not "slow and easy" targets as far as I see...

    Another myth : mean RCS of glide weapons with deployed wings are significantly higher than weapons much bigger devoid of them while IR signature , particularly in the ground-based sensors FoV, is mainly a function of the speed of the weapon and the time of flight in the more dense layers of the atmosphere.


    Not that, to be fair, those differences in RCS or IR signature would anyhow generate any kind of relevant differences in range of engagement by part of modern SHORADS as has been fully and repeteadly proved not only in dozen of domestic exercises with the most modern systems, but also in Syria by part of very outdated SAMs modernized by our specialists in the last few years against almost the most modern US, European and Israeli built air to ground subsonic weapons.

    The by far most important factors influencing interception chances by part of air defenses are speed and capability to maneuver erratically ,even more if we talk of the most modern SAM, integrated in fully developed IADS, those factors become practically the unique ones -.

    You will have noticed that just after latests events in Syria ,Israel has forced the development of theirs first supersonic long range AG munition Wink
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:41 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Obviously not, it is a totally wronged assumption : unpowered glide weapons (even those without the volumetric limits imposed by SDB design, with significantly more effcient aerodynamic layout, like 9-A-7759 series delivered at mach 1.5 speed in the trials) after deployment of the folding wings decelerate to subsonic speed within just few kilometers ; at the very edge of theirs envelop footprint those ammunitions would strike ,at best, at mid-subsonic speed.

    Take into account that just time of arrival to targets (in particular against moving or easily relocatable ones) has been the main reason behind UK MoD decision to reject the unpowered GBU-53 in favour of the powered SPEAR-3 for integration in theirs F-35s.

    Another myth : mean RCS of glide weapons with deployed wings are significantly higher than weapons much bigger devoid of them while IR signature , particularly in the ground-based sensors FoV, is mainly a function of the speed of the weapon and the time of flight in the more dense layers of the atmosphere.


    Not that, to be fair, those differences in RCS or IR signature would anyhow generate any kind of relevant differences in range of engagement by part of modern SHORADS as has been fully and repeteadly proved not only in dozen of domestic exercises with the most modern systems, but also in Syria by part of very outdated SAMs modernized by our specialists in the last few years against almost the most modern US, European and Israeli built air to ground subsonic weapons.

    The by far most important factors influencing interception chances by part of air defenses are speed and capability to maneuver erratically ,even more if we talk of the most modern SAM, integrated in fully developed IADS, those factors become practically the unique ones -.

    You will have noticed that just after latests events in Syria ,Israel has forced the development of theirs first supersonic long range AG munition Wink

    Terrific, no more questions sir!  Very Happy

    True, Rampage was unveiled on the 11th of June. The very manufacturer makes the need clear:

    Boaz Levy, general manager and executive VP of IAI’s Rockets and Space Group, said, “We believe in the Rampage, since it is an important product that fulfils a true operational need in a very efficient way.”

    http://www.imisystems.com/mediacenter/iai-and-imi-systems-unveil-innovative-co-development-the-rampage/

    Sponsored content

    Re: Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:40 pm