Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)

SDB2 has a completely different tail shape.

I'm aware of that, that's why I mentioned adapting the adaptor to mate with an SDB2.

And good luck getting Boeing to design something for a Raytheon product.

Does Boeing make the adaptor or does SAAB? If it's the latter it shouldn't be an issue. But given the success of the limited use of the GLSDB in Ukraine so far I could see the US DOD finally take official interest in the missile and perhaps do a dual-source contract with Boeing and Raytheon in regards to the adaptor section.

On another note wouldn't the SDB1's launcher lugs be removed from the GLSDB variant as not only aren't they needed they add drag to its' airframe. Also what about encapsulating the SDB1 with a clamshell fairing (With an ogival nose) to extend the GLSDB's range by reducing drag, the clamshell fairing would split and seperate just before the adaptor unclamps and releases the SDB1.
 
Last edited:
It can engage moving targets like TELs in all weather. TEL for anything within range is now fair game, even if it's on the move after the shot revealed the TEL location.

If the Russians don't have any TELs for (missile type) they can't fire any more. No matter how many (missile type) they have in stockpiles.

If you know where a TEL is, just fire at at it. If you don't, why are you firing artillery in the first place?

SBD-2 is a much more expensive weapon with a lot more flexibility that is not useful in an artillery deployment. More over, if no one is interested in ground launched SBD-1, it hard to imagine anyone is interested in the dramatically more expensive version.
 
It could also be used against ships too.

Technically yes, practically an SDB would fall inside the engagement envelope of everything from 20mm to 100mm to every single SAM a ship carried. So it seems like a poor use of such.
 
If you know where a TEL is, just fire at at it. If you don't, why are you firing artillery in the first place?
The advantage is that SDB2 can be told "there was a TEL *here*, so sweep south-to-north up this road till you find it or run out of airspeed."

And IIRC you can watch the video as the Stormbreaker goes it via datalink.


SBD-2 is a much more expensive weapon with a lot more flexibility that is not useful in an artillery deployment. More over, if no one is interested in ground launched SBD-1, it hard to imagine anyone is interested in the dramatically more expensive version.
The ability to hit moving targets is a much under-rated thing.
 
Technically yes, practically an SDB would fall inside the engagement envelope of everything from 20mm to 100mm to every single SAM a ship carried. So it seems like a poor use of such.

It would be a very difficult object to target given its small size and no doubt could be programmed to take evasive manoeuvres in its terminal phase.
 
The ability to hit moving targets is a much under-rated thing.

Even with a very short engagement time (from detection to fire order to munition arriving in the target area) you'd struggle to get an SDB2 (or even for that matter a powered Spear) over the target in time if it was moving, particularly as the MMW radar has limited search range (particularly for a gliding weapon that is attempting to manage energy and prolong a glide). Basically by the time the munition arrived the target could have moved out of its MMW range, and in the case of SDB2 its possible MMW range AND flight time for a search. And when the munition costs >$250k per round thats a real issue....(and some FMS cases are >$500k per round...).

The UK is looking at Land Precision Strike, basically a larger Asraam missile shape with Brimstone seeker head for engagements against fixed and moving targets from M270. The range on that is >80km, and the missile will be much faster to target as well...I think that is realistically the limit at present. The proposed P3 missile from c20 years ago was a similar range. The longer ranged LRAE which dispenses a package of 3 x Outrider UAS from a GMLRS-ER for search/detection and re-broadcast, followed by 3 x FFLMM from a follow on munition could extend moving target capability out to 150km+...but it will come at some cost...and I'm not sure it will proceed past a demonstration.
 
The advantage is that SDB2 can be told "there was a TEL *here*, so sweep south-to-north up this road till you find it or run out of airspeed."

And IIRC you can watch the video as the Stormbreaker goes it via datalink.



The ability to hit moving targets is a much under-rated thing.

If you just get to the target faster you do not have to concern yourself with movement. Gliders are going to take an almost order of magnitude more time to go down range.

GBU-53 can receive link 16; I am not sure if it can transmit. Even if so that has nothing to do with sending full motion video, though it could perhaps send a notification that it had found a target and was about to hit it like the most recent HARMs.
 
What appears to be not good news about GLSDB (I think we have to assume that is what is being talked about).

View: https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1783514363841630309?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


Youtube
Talks about Harpoon deployment in Ukraine. The European Nations would presumably be the UK and Denmark. Seems to imply that the un-mothballed Danish Harpoon launch systems were not in fact used (maybe they weren't available) and instead it was a more jury rigged system (which sounds like the UK may have been involved given their history with the Excalibur Exocet system).

Then (presumably) about GLSDB. Which surely should mean the USAF would be worried? Or is it something else?

View: https://www.youtube.com/live/L8IBwse5sgQ?si=2M7qzGLYSzQauOHE&t=3152
 
TTPs? Just give it time, I suspect the Ukrainians will make the GLSDB work and don't forget that they're actively looking for and destroying GPS jammers also I think that they should push the US DoD to develop and GLSDB2 variant.
 
If the GLSDB has been having problems in Ukraine due to Russian GPS jammers then Boeing needs to get onto the case (Although the Ukrainians I do believe are actively hunting and destroying these jammers whenever they can), perhaps the US DoD needs to look at a ground launched SDB2 variant as it has a terminal homing seeker.
 
The U.S. has no interest in rocket launched SDB, because it has aircraft to deliver SDB. It was always a solution in search of a problem from a U.S. standpoint. GMLRS-ER is the U.S. army solution, because it’s faster.

It is unsurprising that a glide bomb with no terminal homing has issues with Russian defenses.
 
Note his comments that if something doesn't work fairly quickly in combat, it gets put aside. Sounds like GLSDB may have been sidelined. If it's not effective, why risk the launcher?
 
If anything I'd say the Ukrainians don't have enough GLSDBs, however with the recently approved aid bill by the US Congress (I do believe that president Biden has signed it into law) maybe Ukraine will be getting a lot more of them soon.

On another note I wonder if the US DoD has an official designation for the GLSDB?
 
The U.S. has no interest in rocket launched SDB, because it has aircraft to deliver SDB. It was always a solution in search of a problem from a U.S. standpoint. GMLRS-ER is the U.S. army solution, because it’s faster.

It is unsurprising that a glide bomb with no terminal homing has issues with Russian defenses.

Thats true. But....SDB is one of the principal US air to surface munitions, and if it is adversely affected by GPS jamming they have a problem for the aircraft deployed weapons as well...
 
Strange that only 1 GPS weapon seems to be affected. Are GPS guidance systems really that varied across the military?
 
Strange that only 1 GPS weapon seems to be affected. Are GPS guidance systems really that varied across the military?

In short yes. SDB1 does not use M-Code GPS, although there are plans apparently to retrofit it/place it on new production. SDB1 is ultimately designed as a cheap weapon. The placement of the antenna may make it more susceptible to jamming of GPS compared to the antenna placement on GMLRS for example.

JDAM has reportedly had issues with GPS denial in Ukraine. The ATCMS seen to date are INS only and do not use GPS. Paveway IV supplied by the UK does use M-Code GPS so should be less affected than JDAM (comes at a price though....PWIV is 3 times as expensive as basic JDAM).
 
In short yes. SDB1 does not use M-Code GPS, although there are plans apparently to retrofit it/place it on new production. SDB1 is ultimately designed as a cheap weapon. The placement of the antenna may make it more susceptible to jamming of GPS compared to the antenna placement on GMLRS for example.

JDAM has reportedly had issues with GPS denial in Ukraine. The ATCMS seen to date are INS only and do not use GPS. Paveway IV supplied by the UK does use M-Code GPS so should be less affected than JDAM (comes at a price though....PWIV is 3 times as expensive as basic JDAM).
What system does AASM use? That seems to work alright based on a few videos anyway.
 
What system does AASM use? That seems to work alright based on a few videos anyway.
AASM uses GPS/INS but also has Semi Active Laser and IIR homing heads available.

Like the name suggests its modular so you can have different configurations: GPS/INS and SAL, GPS/INS and IIR. Rocket booster on the 250kg one as well, to be honest I'm not sure if its been qualified on the 1000kg version, though to be fair we've only seen the 250kg version in Ukraine.

Comes at a cost though...Paveway IV might be 3 times the cost of basic JDAM....AASM is 3 times the cost of Paveway IV...
 
In short yes. SDB1 does not use M-Code GPS, although there are plans apparently to retrofit it/place it on new production. SDB1 is ultimately designed as a cheap weapon. The placement of the antenna may make it more susceptible to jamming of GPS compared to the antenna placement on GMLRS for example.

JDAM has reportedly had issues with GPS denial in Ukraine. The ATCMS seen to date are INS only and do not use GPS. Paveway IV supplied by the UK does use M-Code GPS so should be less affected than JDAM (comes at a price though....PWIV is 3 times as expensive as basic JDAM).

It is worth noting M code is not yet enabled in the GPS constellation. That said, there are jam resistant antennas mounted on some weapons (SABR-Y).

I suspect part of the problem is the long glide out phase of the weapon, which allows more time to shoot it down and more time for its INS to drift. This is not an active weapon system for any other military; it was thrown together for Ukraine because the U.S. Army wasn’t interested.
 
I suspect part of the problem is the long glide out phase of the weapon, which allows more time to shoot it down and more time for its INS to drift. This is not an active weapon system for any other military; it was thrown together for Ukraine because the U.S. Army wasn’t interested.

It wasn't thrown together though...it was first test fired 9 years ago after lots of work by Boeing and Saab.

As for the glide? Its going to be pushed out to at least 40 miles by the M26 rocket before release, it will be released at a higher altitude (believe M26 hits around 46,000ft at perigee) than most SDB are dropped from aircraft and will be travelling faster as well. Unless its going out to the maximum range that it can reach its glide profile is likely to be better than an air dropped SDB, faster and from a higher altitude. Sure if you go for an ultra long range shot it will be long and flat, but it will still start from a higher altitude and from a much higher speed.
 
In short yes. SDB1 does not use M-Code GPS, although there are plans apparently to retrofit it/place it on new production. SDB1 is ultimately designed as a cheap weapon. The placement of the antenna may make it more susceptible to jamming of GPS compared to the antenna placement on GMLRS for example.

JDAM has reportedly had issues with GPS denial in Ukraine. The ATCMS seen to date are INS only and do not use GPS. Paveway IV supplied by the UK does use M-Code GPS so should be less affected than JDAM (comes at a price though....PWIV is 3 times as expensive as basic JDAM).
So does GMLRS and ATACMS use M-Code because they still seem to work?
 
No. Some versions of ATACMs do not even use GPS. GMLRS will use M code in future builds but older rockets do no have the feature and again, M code is not active yet doue to problems with the ground segment.
Strange that SDB would have problems then, because I see videos of GMLRS hitting the actual EW stations all day long. I'm thinking that the bulk of the problems may be non-jamming related.
 
It wasn't thrown together though...it was first test fired 9 years ago after lots of work by Boeing and Saab.

As for the glide? Its going to be pushed out to at least 40 miles by the M26 rocket before release, it will be released at a higher altitude (believe M26 hits around 46,000ft at perigee) than most SDB are dropped from aircraft and will be travelling faster as well. Unless its going out to the maximum range that it can reach its glide profile is likely to be better than an air dropped SDB, faster and from a higher altitude. Sure if you go for an ultra long range shot it will be long and flat, but it will still start from a higher altitude and from a much higher speed.

Well it never entered production. There is no line to produce it so these first examples are probably more or less pre-production samples.

40 miles sounds a little generous for the original version of the rocket; that is the GMLRS range. The cluster bomb rockets I believe had shorter range.

In any case, it will have a long, subsonic fly out from high altitude to achieve its maximum range compared to an aeroballistic missile like ATACMs. That will introduce more vulnerability.
 
Strange that SDB would have problems then, because I see videos of GMLRS hitting the actual EW stations all day long. I'm thinking that the bulk of the problems may be non-jamming related.

Pentagon said HIMARS rockets had also been struggling in GPS denied environments and we know JDAM also failed to be effective in Ukraine and was pulled. I am seeing some suggestions that the reason European GPS guided weapons are handling the electronic warfare environment but US ones arent is the Boeing GPS Antenna's arent up to snuff. BAE has recently been winning a lot of orders for its GPS guidance kit in the US.
 
Pentagon said HIMARS rockets had also been struggling in GPS denied environments and we know JDAM also failed to be effective in Ukraine and was pulled. I am seeing some suggestions that the reason European GPS guided weapons are handling the electronic warfare environment but US ones arent is the Boeing GPS Antenna's arent up to snuff. BAE has recently been winning a lot of orders for its GPS guidance kit in the US.
Interesting, I still see HIMARS working well in videos though, GL-SDB I've only seen one from memory, 2 for AASM.
 
Possibly depends on age of munitions, been varying improved marks over the years as well as different FCS software in the launchers.

The above. Different vintages of GPS guidance have different levels of vulnerability. Also GPS jamming likely forces most weapons to fall back to INS guidance at some point in flight, and INS guidance might also have varying degrees of accuracy. Jamming is not typically going to make a missile or bomb go wild; it is going to degrade the accuracy. So different weapons will have different levels of effectiveness and likely only be incrementally degraded, though projectiles with the smallest explosive load will likely be more affected, all other things equal.
 



As an aside there was some articles around November last year that Ukraine had managed to overcome jamming of open commercial frequencies used by consumer quadcopters between the drone and the operator by scrambling the GPS position data transmitted by the drone back to the operator, they were having the drones intentionally transmit bad or impossible location data that they could unscramble so when the Russians transmitted false (but plausible) location data they knew it was fake.
 
Last edited:
The US DoD will no doubt be on top of this coming up with technical solutions to counter Russian anti-GPS jamming also once Ukraine gets its' F-16s they will need to be given a shitload of AGM-88s to destroy those Russian jammers (Well, the Ukrainians are already working overtime to identify and destroy these jamming units).
 
Last edited:
It seems this ineffectiveness contributed to why the US decided on the supply of ATACMS to Ukraine.

This is disappointing. If you are wondering why you never hear about GLSDB being used by Ukraine, it is because it has been an operational failure.Boing and SAAB were awarded a contract and delivered GLSDB to Ukraine, but in a real-world environment, it doesn't actually work.Due to electromagnetic interference from the Russians and the normal wear and tear of the launchers being out in an real world environment, GLSDB never proved reliable at hitting its targets on the battlefield.This might have contributed to Biden's decision to send long range ATACMS finally in February.

View: https://twitter.com/RealJakeBroe/status/1783973226689011730
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom