• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb

Dilandu

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
100
Reaction score
16
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
425
Reaction score
118
Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
 

DanielStarseer

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
Hmm... though it could be debated, "what much use is a 63-pound warhead against a modern ship",
it could prove interesting if the US were to trial a flechette-type warhead instead of bulk explosive:
attacking the target vessel in a near-vertical (or steep dive) trajectory (if it gets through the ship's CIWS),
an airburst above the ship of incendiary-alloy flechettes (so-called reactive materials, pyrophoric like when DU hits steel)
could decimate antennas, wave guides, and radar arrays: those items are NOT armored, and do not react well to even minimal damage.
Enough fragmentation will disable a ship's eyes, whether they are rotating antennas, optical gimbals, or phased arrays,
multiple holes in the wrong place will distort or damage wave guides, cause electrical shorts, start a lot of small fires in areas you don't want flames, etc.
And if you can't see additional future attacks coming at you, these first few SDBs did their job.

There is (or was) development of "low collateral damage" bombs containing hundreds of various-sized tungsten rods/penetrators,
intended to attack point targets like a SAM near a school or hospital, where explosive blast radius is cause for concern.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what effect such a warhead airbursting over a ship's topside would create,
to see if we could actually exploit LCD warheads for maximized fragmentation effects against ships, in attempts to disable their sensors for follow-on attacks from larger ordnance.
 

DanielStarseer

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
Actually, such weapon could be a perfect solution of naval gunfire support problem... It have range, accuracy, and compact & cheap enough to carry in relatively large numbers.
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
Years ago (prior to DDG-1000 Zumwalt and its AGS being selected), Lockheed Martin pushed the POLAR concept: Precision Over-the-horizon Land Attack Rocket. These effectively, for their size, quad-packed like Sea Sparrow/ESSM in Mk 41 VLS cells. I see little reason why a renewed interest in a VLS-SDB, coupled to that fancy tri-mode seeker, couldn't create an interesting multi-target (maritime or land) surface strike weapon.
 

Dilandu

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
100
Reaction score
16
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
No 7+ inch naval guns still in service, unless you mean just using the as rockets from VLS cells??
I mean, putting them in some kind of shipborne container launcher, preferably quad (or more) packing them into Mk-41 cell. So the Mk-41-carrying ship (or Mk-57 carrying) could be adapted for coastal bombardment role by stuffing her with SBD-tipped rockets.
 

carvalho2008

Naval alternative projects
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
51
Reaction score
1
[QUOTE = "DanielStarseer, post: 361957, membro: 4021"]
Hmm ... embora possa ser debatido, "que utilidade é uma ogiva de 63 libras contra um navio moderno",
poderia ser interessante se os EUA testassem uma ogiva do tipo flechette em vez de explosivos a granel:
atacar a embarcação-alvo em uma trajetória quase vertical (ou íngreme) (se ela passar pelo CIWS do navio),
uma explosão de ar acima do navio de flechettes de liga incendiária (os chamados materiais reativos, pirofóricos como quando DU atinge o aço)
poderia dizimar antenas, guias de ondas e matrizes de radar: esses itens NÃO são blindados e não reagem bem a danos mínimos.
Fragmentação suficiente desativará os olhos de uma nave, sejam eles antenas rotativas, cardan óptico ou matrizes em fases,
vários orifícios no lugar errado distorcerão ou danificarão as guias de ondas, causarão curtos elétricos, iniciarão muitos pequenos incêndios em áreas onde você não deseja chamas, etc.
E se você não conseguir ver futuros ataques adicionais, esses primeiros SDBs fizeram o seu trabalho.

Existe (ou houve) desenvolvimento de bombas de "baixo dano colateral" contendo centenas de varetas / penetradores de vários tamanhos,
destinado a atacar alvos pontuais, como um SAM, perto de uma escola ou hospital, onde o raio da explosão é motivo de preocupação.
Seria uma experiência interessante ver qual o efeito que uma explosão de uma ogiva no topo do navio criaria,
para ver se poderíamos realmente explorar ogivas de LCD para obter efeitos maximizados de fragmentação contra navios, na tentativa de desativar seus sensores para ataques subseqüentes de artefatos maiores.
[/CITAR]

Absolutaly correct!

Now a day, with a GLSDB, a simple and small SSK can atack landbases. GLSDB + Small SSK can be a solution for reach a launch zone with stealth mode.

Can be a NSFS operations too.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
I don't think the Navy is going to permit a new, non-IM munition for shipboard use especially with
ER-GMLRS in the pipeline and being earmarked for the Marines.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
I don't think the Navy is going to permit a new, non-IM munition for shipboard use especially with
ER-GMLRS in the pipeline and being earmarked for the Marines.
SDB is already IM, isn't it? (The explosive fill at least is described as insensitive.) Obviously, there would be some serious HERO testing needed for employing the integrated system on a ship. But they've already done quite a bit of shipboard testing with various versions of MLRS/HIMARS, including GMLRS a couple of years ago.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
77
The rocket motor isn't. They've gotten waivers for the various GMLRS testing.
 

eshelon

unconventional solutions
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
73
Reaction score
6
Hmm... though it could be debated, "what much use is a 63-pound warhead against a modern ship",
it could prove interesting if the US were to trial a flechette-type warhead instead of bulk explosive:
attacking the target vessel in a near-vertical (or steep dive) trajectory (if it gets through the ship's CIWS),
an airburst above the ship of incendiary-alloy flechettes (so-called reactive materials, pyrophoric like when DU hits steel)
could decimate antennas, wave guides, and radar arrays: those items are NOT armored, and do not react well to even minimal damage.
Enough fragmentation will disable a ship's eyes, whether they are rotating antennas, optical gimbals, or phased arrays,
multiple holes in the wrong place will distort or damage wave guides, cause electrical shorts, start a lot of small fires in areas you don't want flames, etc.
And if you can't see additional future attacks coming at you, these first few SDBs did their job.
"The first major air strike on Haiphong since 1968 took place on the 15th of April. During the strike, Worden* was damaged by two anti-radiation missiles** inadvertently fired by United States support aircraft. One crew member was killed, and nine others were seriously injured; they were airlifted by helicopter to the carrier Tripoli (CVU-64) for treatment. Worden proceeded to Subic Bay for a 10-day repair period."

* USS Worden (CG-18)
** AGM-45 Shrike (~68 kg frag warhead)
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
930
Reaction score
37
Saab and Boeing Conduct Successful Test Firing of Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb

PRESS RELEASE
14 October 2019
Saab has together with Boeing conducted a successful long-range test firing of the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) in Norway.
The test firing took place at the Andøya Test Center in Andenes, Norway, September 26, 2019. The objective of the test firing was to hit a predetermined target in the sea, 130 km away from the launcher. The launcher used in the test firing was a custom made, fully autonomous, 20 foot container.
“In collaboration with Boeing, we have developed a highly competent system that offers high precision at long range. We see a lot of potential in the GLSDB, since it provides armed forces around the world with a long range artillery capability, which there is a great demand for”, says Görgen Johansson, Head of Saab business area Dynamics.
GLSDB is a partnership between Saab and Boeing. The GLSDB system stands out with its high accuracy over long ranges, and has the ability to fly complex trajectories and manoeuvres to strike targets that cannot be reached by conventional direct and indirect fire weapons. It is launcher independent, which means that it can be fired from a containerised solution, as well as any launcher capable of using the M26 launch pod container e.g. HIMARS, M270 and ChunMoo. The containerised solution can also be used onboard ships, providing GLSDB with the ability be fired from both land and sea assets.
“Boeing and Saab bring together deep knowledge of precision weapon systems and the ability to rapidly integrate and test solutions,” said Cindy Gruensfelder, vice president, Boeing Weapons. “Combining our companies’ expertise, experience and resources have resulted in an advanced, cost efficient, supportable global rocket artillery solution that brings warfighters the level of capability needed to combat current and future threats in a joint force environment.” 
GLSDB gives land and naval forces a mobile, organic capability to hit targets that were previously out of their reach. This is achieved by taking advantage of the Small Diameter Bomb’s inherent manoeuvrability and accuracy. GLSDB is the ultimate long-range solution, combining affordability and performance, and meets the evolving needs of armed forces today and tomorrow.


 

butch4343

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
SpudmanWP said:
Imagine these from a VL Mk41. Set them for a timed, simultaneous impact to overwhelm naval targets.

Using a mk41 would also allow for a longer motor which would give a longer range.

I see an issue with flight time and target movement if used at long range, unless you update the trajectory. That being said, you wouldn't need more than a couple of hits to make even the largest surface combatant significantly less effective due to internal blast damage/fire. Aircraft carriers in particular would make juicy targets due to their large deck area and surfeit of soft, vulnerable, flammable items immediately beneath (even if the aircraft are not fully fuelled, there's always unusable fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks). And even if your deck is tough enough to stop the bomb right there, you're surely going to get fire, local buckling and blast effect to anything nearby (aircraft, deck crew, radar superstructures, etc.) IIRC this was the rationale for giving the SBD Dauntless in its scout mode a 500lb bomb; even if it couldn't sink a carrier alone, it could make a hole in the deck and stop the carrier from launching a defensive scramble or a counter-strike before the follow-up attack group arrived to finish the job. This thing is far more effective than a WW2-vintage 500 pounder, and a carrier captain is going to have a nasty problem on his hands if any more than a couple of them hit him.


I'm thinking that a 1900-vintage protected cruiser, with its armoured deck and protective/sacrificial above-deck internal spaces, could take a hit from one of these and keep fighting. Modern ships, stuffed to the gills with essentials and with no armour or dead space to speak of, significantly less so - the only advantage the modern ship has is in the efficacy of its damage control measures.


It'd be sort of like Hedgehog for surface warships, albeit with a much heavier and more effective charge.

I see a second issue with using a glide bomb against warships, I am thinking that if a SDB is gliding in from 40k ft, wont that be a pretty easy firing soloution for the defending missile/CIWS? The elderly Harpoon flies very low and reasonably fast (450+knts) and executes a terminal pop up manouvre in order to try and defeat such defences, what does a SDB "cruise" at? obviously it takes its initial velocity from its release platform but over time that will decay to gliding speed that is at most 150-200knts.

So I see lots of vulnerabilities to the SDB on its way to the target.

Butch
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
I wonder how difficult it would be to develop a supersonic variant for MLRS launch.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
I wonder how difficult it would be to develop a supersonic variant for MLRS launch.
Can't the Raptor already launch them supersonic? Shouldn't be that difficult.
It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
425
Reaction score
118
It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
I guess you would want some kind of variable sweep system for the wings. If it was just about reducing drag, you probably wouldn't deploy the wings and just steer with the tail(?).
 

mkellytx

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
57
Reaction score
11
It can, and the test shots from MLRS likely separate while supersonic as well. I'm not talking about weapon release however, I'm wondering how long SDB stays supersonic after the wings deploy, and if that can be improved (though likely at the cost of range).
IIRC the wings don't deploy until subsonic.
 

DanielStarseer

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
If we REALLY want to air launch it supersonic for range and anti-countermeasures (get thru those land-based C-RAM) a la RAMPAGE,
why couldn't Raytheon or LM develop an AIM-120, PAC-3 (THAAD?) or ESSM-based booster section for the SDB weapon?
But at that point, we're almost at the level of a from-the-ground-up supersonic strike weapon.
Anyone still have the blueprints for AGM-69 SRAM? Mach 3 but with a modern conventional warhead the weight of the old W-69 200kT warhead,
might make for an interesting lower-cost "Prompt Tactical Strike" air-to-ground, than the upcoming hypersonics (which will, most likely, not be cheap).
The idea is cheap, available, and minimal development. They announced a few days ago that it was ready to enter production. (Presumably they're waiting for somebody to order it.)
 
Top