South African missiles/rockets/PGM's - Prototypes, Projects, Concepts, etc.

Another thing about that trio of cruise missiles....

I note you said it was 2 tiered, then became 3 tiered.

Something that I've noticed, and it is my opinion only:
The MUPSOW, later Torgos, is an air launched cruise missile (ALCM).

The other two, Skua and Flowchart/Seraph, seem to me to be far too big for the platforms the South African Airforce were going to operate from the mid/late 1990's onwards. Thus, they appear to me to be land launched missiles, or possibly sea launched too.

With the dwindling Buccaneer strike force on it's way out, the mid to late 90's would have seen upgraded Cheetah C's, D's, upgraded Mirage F1's, and the New Generation Fighter Aircraft (Carver) coming on line at some point.
None of these seem nearly large enough to tote a Skua or Flowchart/Seraph style ALCM. Not even the Buccaneer would have been either, IMHO.

The only aircraft with the size to launch them would have been the Boeing 707's.
I've seen it mentioned that additional examples were to be procured, with a view toward more offensive missions.

Still, that aside, it appears to me therefore that the MUPSOW/Torgos was the ALCM, and Skua and Flowchart/Seraph were a two tiered, land launched system.
Unless the Boeing 707 expansion programme, with a view to be an aerial launcher, was definitely the way planned ahead...

If I'm correct, this would mean Skua and Flowchart were in direct competition as the low/high end, and the MUPSOW/Torgos a seperate strand? If not in launch method, then certainly size?

Speculation on my part, of course.
I do not see a photo of the Mupsow in this threat. For those wondering how the Mupsow (Multi purpose standoff weapon) is a photo of an early demonstrator version.


  • f1mupsow1.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 303
Kaiserbill, your deductions make good sense, I need to chat to my source again in terms of this - it was many years ago, so my memory could be out a bit... Regarding the submarines, I need to correct myself, it was not from the Daphne's that the launch of 2 X Skua (cruise missiles) was shown as a diagram in "Those Who had The Power" - but rather from a HDW Type 209/1500 - that we had apparentely bought the blue-prints for.

The real reason for this post was to show the first mock-up of Raptor III as revealed at AAD 2014 - herewith some pics I took earlier today - it will be powered by a mini turbojet and weigh under 1 ton (Raptor II is 1,2 tons). I had a long chat with the program lead from Denel on this, however I will expand on this in a later post - in the meantime here are the pics!


  • DSC05247a.JPG
    581.7 KB · Views: 331
  • DSC05345.jpg
    192.1 KB · Views: 254
  • DSC05246a.jpg
    192.2 KB · Views: 237
  • DSC05338.jpg
    140.9 KB · Views: 268
  • DSC05343.jpg
    177.7 KB · Views: 279
  • DSC05241.jpg
    199.3 KB · Views: 261
A mini cruise missile.

Looking forward to more pics and info. ;D

Hopefully you asked lots of questions, particuarly about previous stand-off weapons, and various BVRAAMs...
As per the posts in the "Various aviation projects from South Africa" thread, in the Postwar Aircraft Projects section, I have decided to post this here as it relates specifically to cruise missile use -

I chatted to the lead engineer from CSIR on this project, and in essence he mentioned the following:

1. There is a strong international need/requirement that has been placed on them, hence the Resurrection of the program (plus a local need).
2. He dug up the project "Apartment" program purely as a starting point for the project, so as not to 'reinvent the wheel' - however his initial designs will differ quite a bit (much lighter, smaller, more powerful and more fuel efficient).
3. He has commissioned Stellenbosch University and a small private company to design and build a 200N turbojet engine for radio controlled models use. This could have easily been bought off the shelf, however the aim was to produce our own and obtain the basic knowledge and grounding, allowing them to develop larger stuff later. They have completed the 200N project (I will post pics later).
4. The University and small company are now busy with designing the 600N advanced cycle turbine for Glider sustain-er purposes - and to further increase their ability.
5. He has a request to produce a very compact engine (could be the 600N mentioned above, or perhaps the new 3 kN model, developed from project Apartment?), for the Raptor III as per my post above. Although the lead Engineer on the Raptor III told me that he is free to choose any gas turbine engine he wants - so if CSIR don't make it in time, I guess Denel is going elsewhere. He will end up on a 6.6 kN model at the end of this project (so -200N, then 600N, then 3.3 kN, ending with a 6.6 kN engine).
6. He mentioned that there were a few other projects, other then project Apartment on the go in the 80's and 90's, without elaborating...
7. He seemed to indicate that he will be working on developing a turbofan as his project (as opposed to the turbojet that project Apartment is) - perhaps this will be the 6.6 kN version.
8. The reason project Apartment was terminated (even though it was showing very good promise), was that the French quickly decided to supply us with one of their own turbojets (Microturbo?), as soon as they saw that we were getting it right, they obviously thought it better to get the sale and prevent a new competitor in the micro turbo market. Apparently what we bought from the French was then used in Skua (although the accompanying sign mentions that project Apartment was as a replacement for the Skua turbojet).

Below are some pics of project Apartment model as per the show - I am not a professional photographer and battled a bit with the perspex case covering the engine, so please forgive the poor quality of my pics.


  • DSC05307.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 161
  • DSC05280.jpg
    134.6 KB · Views: 147
  • DSC05278.jpg
    142.1 KB · Views: 136
  • DSC05277.jpg
    143.2 KB · Views: 137
  • DSC05276.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 150
  • DSC05275a.jpg
    122.7 KB · Views: 206
Graugrun said:
... Apparently what we bought from the French was then used in Skua (although the accompanying sign mentions that project Apartment was as a replacement for the Skua turbojet).

Excellent post, info and pics Graugrun.

The info board on Project Apartment is incorrect though. The Project Apartment turbojet features in Helmoed Romer Heitmans SA Arms and Armour from 1988. The writeup also features a pic of the engine, and was posted earlier in the thread.
So it clearly dates from before "the 1990's" that the info board states.
The SAAF museum for example, in the "Aviation Projcts forum", states that Project Apartment started in 1977, and the prototypes had all been constructed by the 1980's.

Thanks very much for all that info.
It is a pity he wouldn't elaborate more on "the other projects" from back in the day.
We also have that engine displayed earlier, as mentioned, that is clearly more advanced than Apartment. I suppose one day info will come out regarding it.

It appears that they will be following a similar route to the original programme, ie: a simple turbojet and a more advanced turbofan, but with new designs.

I look forward with great anticipation to your following posts. ;D
Kaiserbill, I think the info board was also meant to be politically correct - the new government thinks that anything before the 90's is evil and incorrect, hence the referral to the 90's and not the 80's.

In the meantime here is a link to the IHS Janes article on the Raptor III -

Marlin (BVRAAM) is also there, I will post it's link as well as some of my own pics of it next.
Some more info on the 100Km Marlin BVRAAM as promised - I never got to speak to the lead engineer, only overheard a little here and there. It seems to be the final iteration of a long list of attempts to get the government to fund a BVRAAM/AMRAAM type missile (S-Darter/T-Darter/B-Darter). As the Janes article mentions it will start with the first ground launch (ballistic tests) early next year. It is interesting in that it will be both an air to air, surface to air (ground launched) and surface to air (ship launched) missile - when you don't have first world budgets you've got to wring the most out of it...

The pics where rather difficult to take due to the small surrounding space and how the missiles where positioned. I tried to get a flat side pic so as to see the differences in length and diameter compared to Umkhonto and A-Darter specifically. It seems to be a bit longer than Umkhonto, and the same or similar diameter (these are just models though, so don't rely too much on their accuracy). Umkhonto's diameter is 180 mm and it's length is 3,3 m (R-Darter was 160 mm by 3,62 m and A-Darter is 166 mm by 2,98 m). There is a strong drive to get Brazil (and perhaps others) to co-fund this project, as was the case with A-Darter. Something was signed off with Brazil earlier this year, time will tell whether it relates to Marlin or not though.

The IHS Janes article in this link gives much more interesting insight though: -

Below are some of the pics I took at AAD 2014 - note the AcuFuze atop the 155mm shell in the first pic - I will cover that in the artillery section, I will also post more about the Hungwe mini drone seen in the pics in it's relevant section.


  • DSC05255.jpg
    176.7 KB · Views: 282
  • DSC05257.jpg
    154.1 KB · Views: 296
  • DSC05267.jpg
    138.2 KB · Views: 308
Thanks Graugrun.

How does that Impundulu BVRAAM missile that you posted on Pg3 Reply 38 fit into the scheme of things?
kaiserbill said:
How does that Impundulu BVRAAM missile that you posted on Pg3 Reply 38 fit into the scheme of things?

I was about to post something on Impundulu , I also got to speak to the lead engineer on this (still a CSIR concept/project) - it is in essence a different project (albeit low key) to project Marlin. It was halted over the past two years by the DoD as they did not want anything to clash with or duplicate project Marlin. However they have now given it the go-ahead again (still low funding and low key) as it has a very different function to the Marlin BVRAAM.

It is in fact a HARM/ALAARM type anti radiation missile. It's being worked on as the potential future threat that we might face will most likely have far more sophisticated ground/radar defences than those we faced in the Border/Angolan war. Pantsir 1 was was mentioned as among the newer defences that might need to be considered. It also has another fulfilment/requirement, however they became very coy when I asked about it - is it perhaps also meant to be a bit of an AWACS type killer? Perhaps someone else can give us more of an educated guess regards this.

The engineer was well aware of the benefits of the aero-spike projecting out of the rocket motor - as per the feedback from compton_effect and Racer on page 3 (note the new close up pic of it that I took below), he also mentioned that the jagged edges on the fins were for stealth purposes - however he also made it very clear that he had made use of a fair bit of 'artistic/engineering license' with the model, as it is still within the concept phase at the moment. It seems that a different rocket motor could be built for it (with the aero-spike?), as well as a different body to that of Marlin.

Looking at the model it clearly is a much larger missile than A-Darter, so looks to be a fair bit bigger than Marlin too - I know it's not at all sound practice to work off of a model in terms of measurements, but then perhaps the model in this case is accurate?

The new pod now on the centerline is the new Inundu EW test, evaluation and training pod (a completed project by the same lead engineer).


  • DSC05274.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 267
  • DSC05272.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 213
  • DSC05271.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 185
  • DSC05269.JPG
    510 KB · Views: 173
Nice one. Thanks Graugrun.
A very interesting concept. Explains the gold patches near the nose too. Probably secondary thermal imaging or special receivers.
One thing that I was curious about was the maneuverability of a aerospike nozzle. I can't imagine it having thrust vectoring. But that is not really neccessary for a HARM type missile.
Compton_effect - I think you are correct in terms of your assesement - I also think that any current military force worth it's salt will have or want to have an AWACS killer (and general type HARM) missile within it's inventry. I suspect that we have possibley also had discrete inquires from another country/ies in terms of this capability, hence the project being resurrected.

Here is another photo that I forgot to post with those above, it's a clearer shot of the rear of the model. Looking at it again, I must say that it really is a lot larger than the Marlin BVRAAM, so it's going to be quite a missile.

Interesting that it is displayed on the Hawk, while it could just be pure coincidence - alternatively it could also speak volumes in terms of our future air warfare doctrine.


  • DSC05349.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 616
I must admit I hadn't considered an ARM missile.

It makes a lot of sense now.
Thanks Graugrun.

I see you say resurrected.
I take it there was a previous Anti Radiation Missile programme?
Kaiserbill I think the first sentence or two in my post #89 answers your question.

I was not going to post these as they are both produced weapons, however perhaps particularly for foreign visitors, they might find the progression of the Raptor PGM interesting (in light of my Raptor III pics in post #82 above). As mentioned in the brochures it has been integrated onto the Mirage III, V, Cheetah and F1. Then also on the Sukhoi SU-24 (which I suspect is for Algeria). Pakistan is fairly open about them having it, see one of their squadron's paintings below clearly depicting Raptor II being launched from one of their Mirages.

The weapon is slightly unusual in that the dropping aircraft can be different from the controlling aircraft if need be.

As per sa_bushwar's video post # 61, showing it being dropped in combat action against the Cuito bridge in Angola on 3 January 1988 (when it was then still known as the H-2). I later met someone who was on the H-2 program at the time, he said that they we very upset with the military for wrenching the H-2 out of their hands for use against the Cuito bridge when it was still very much an uncompleted prototype. This explains some of the misses they had before the near (but successful) hit they had depicted in sa_bushwar's video. A little bit of translation from the video for those who don't understand Afrikaans - they are talking about a (military) vehicle that happens to be on the bridge as the H-2 is being guided in (this could be direct feedback from a South African Special Forces operator on the ground?), at the last moment one of them says that the Bomb is going in slightly to to left of the bridge into the water. It did enough damage though, as the Russians, Cubans and Fapla could only use it for walking traffic and not for their tanks/IFV/trucks - which is exactly why we were targeting the bridge in the first place.

Very nice post BTW sa_bushwar - thanks!

BTW the reason that they had initially for many years been so cagey about H-2/Raptor, was that it was apparently also very much part of our then nuclear weapons program.


  • Cobra's deadly venom..jpg
    Cobra's deadly venom..jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 282
  • Raptor II-06.jpg
    Raptor II-06.jpg
    488.6 KB · Views: 571
  • Raptor II-05.jpg
    Raptor II-05.jpg
    409.7 KB · Views: 576
  • Raptor I-04.jpg
    Raptor I-04.jpg
    381.3 KB · Views: 598
  • Raptor I-03.jpg
    Raptor I-03.jpg
    396.1 KB · Views: 656
sa_bushwar - Although I did not ask the direct 'Is this the Skua replacement' question, the guys I spoke to on the CSIR stand about it said that it was simply an in-house concept that they want to build to test a whole range of their new and developing technologies (as per the adjacent word board) - an obvious one would be the new turbojet/turbofan project.

Denel have stated that they are working on a Skua replacement which they refer to in-house simply as "Target 2". Who knows though, maybe this is it...

One of my own pics taken from a slightly different angle to yours.


  • DSC05301.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 255
Some points I forgot to mention in my Raptor III post #82, that were told to me:

1. There are Raptor II E and F versions that differ to the II D (seekers/guidance?).
2. The reason for lowering Raptor III's weight to under 1 ton (Raptor II is 1,2 tons) is that it will dramatically open up their potential to fit and therefore ability to sell it onto many other aircraft types (it sounded like there were other/new interested parties).
3. More interestingly is that Raptor IV is going to be very much like MUPSOW or the KEPD 350 Taurus in shape (and size?).
So, point number 3 seems to indicate that those long range munitions, based on the MUPSOW or Torgos, are back in development?

Good news if it comes to fruition.
Kaiserbill, he did not confirm that either the MUPSOW or Torgos programmes were being resurrected, however I assume at the very least they would fall back on them as reference points, since a lot of work was done on them it would be foolish not to. However I got the impression that it would be a new project and therefore different to either of them. I never got MUPSOW's brochure, just a pic of the front - see below, also my own pic taken at DEXSA 1998 IIRC - see also sa_bushwar's post #81.

MUPSOW was a pretty serious weapon from our perspective, certainly also forming part of our then nuclear weapons program and also most certainly having a range far in excess of 300km (this was developed long before our signatory and membership to the MTCR missile control regime in 1995 (max 300km range and 500Kg warhead). The seeker is (Kentron's - now Denel Dynamics's) Kenis, a light weight third generation staring focal plane array, 3-5uM thermal imager that they had developed in-house. Coupled with ATR (Automatic Target Recognition), or more likely man in the loop/GPS/INS guidance - this would have allowed for some pretty accurate delivery over very long distances.

No wonder this program was cancelled the moment we denounced our nuclear weapons program and dis-mantelled the 7 odd nuclear warheads we supposedly had (many say that these 7 nukes were just the tip of the proverbial iceberg).

Torgos was derived from MUPSOW - I will also cover it soon.


  • Mupsow-05.jpg
    88.5 KB · Views: 317
  • Mupsow-06.jpg
    33.1 KB · Views: 306
Thanks Graugrun.

I was pretty fascinated about it the moment MUPSOW was first shown, as it was clear to me that it was, as you allude to, a more strategic type weapon of a type that the SAAF hadn't previously operated.

I recall in Those who had the power that there seems to have been long ranged tests conducted on what appears to have been a cruise missile type weapon. I'm operating from memory here, so might be wrong, but I seem to recall that it was in a range bracket far far exceeding 300km. I recall it possibly being done along the coast. I'm not sure whether the conclusion was that it was a Skua type before it became a drone, or something like MUPSOW.

Again, operating from memory here, so might be wrong.

Once again, you have posted some really great stuff.
The book (Those Who Had The Power), says that it apparently was a test involving a missile being launched in 1996 from the Denel OTB range near Cape Town. Launched with two boosters, it flew east towards Port Elizabeth, maintaining a constant altitude of 6 metres (skirting the coastline - and being visually tracked/monitored the whole way), splashed down near Port Elizabeth and then was recovered from the sea.

That's just over 500km as the crow flies, however by following the coastline it would have ended up being far more than just 500km. The authors say that they were told that it "cannot fly into mountains" and also that it "cannot be picked up by radar" - reference to terrain avoidance and stealth?. Ranges were given as 1760km and 880km for the UAV version. Speculation was that it could have been one of the two Skua's modified for use in support of the Seraph (Flowchart 2) development - if true, then could this have been the very elusive Flowchart 1? Alternatively they state that it could have been the offensive version of Flowchart 2

The authors rule out MUPSOW as per the above, even though they acknowledge MUPSOW had also been tested in the same year.
I found it interesting that MUPSOW remained a secret until a British requirement for for a conventional stand-off missile materialised, suddenly MUPSOW was out in the open and initially formed part of the bidding process. Herewith some more info on MUPSOW- in the form of two articles, the first from Flight International 30 Nov-6 Dec 1994 indicating that Kentron (now Denel Dynamics)would be proposing a modular PGM weapon for the RAF's Air 1236 staff requirement. I doubt it was Torgos on offer, it was only revealed at the Dubai 2000 airshow in November 1999.

The next article from Janes Defence Weekly 22-07-1995, eight months later now states that Kentron has teamed up with GEC-Marconi Dynamics with it's Pegasus bid for SR Air 1236, as Kentron would not be able to meet the 100% offset requirement (proposing MUPSOW?), so instead opted for a sub-contractor role. More interesting is that it mentions that Kentron's role on Pegasus would most likely be structural and propulsion related.

So was Project Apartement and any other mini turbojet/turbofan projects a lot more advanced/complete than what has been revealed in public (even to date?).


  • JDW 22-07-1995.jpg
    JDW 22-07-1995.jpg
    354.3 KB · Views: 254
  • Flight International 30-11-1994.jpg
    Flight International 30-11-1994.jpg
    105.5 KB · Views: 206
Although I originally posted this in the SA aviation thread, it being a small and expendable gas turbine it actually belongs here in the SA missile/PGM thread - also as reference to the above post.

Also unlike my post #84 above, this looks possibly like a working version.


  • Project Apartment-04.jpg
    Project Apartment-04.jpg
    531.4 KB · Views: 196
So is 1994 the first time MUPSOW was made public?

On the propulsion question, the only thing I can do is post again what I did on the Aviation Projects forum.
It is from Air Report 1994, and is from the chapter "Home Grown" that dealt with indigineous projects.

The picture description below, which I've bolded the interesting part:

"Although initially designed for military aviation use, this Gas Turbine may be used as an electricity supply generator for rural areas."

It is clearly a more advanced engine than the Apartment turbojets shown before.
Unfortunately, this is the only picture I've ever seen of it, and silence seems to have descended onto it after it was displayed.


  • Scanlocalgasturbine001.JPG
    95 KB · Views: 207
Another interesting section of the "Home Grown" section:

" the mid-1970's when Armscor sponsored technology development areas through the CSIR's National Institute of Defence Research (NIDR). The first project was to develop a sea-skimming missile called "Project X". The projects emphasis was not so much on producing the missile, but in assessing local capabilities and expertise in the avionics and flight control and guidance fields."

Bear in mind that many projects were strictly classified still in 1994, and those that had something known about them were often subjected to deliberate misinformation.
In fact, some projects from that era still are...
I believe MUPSOW was first revealed in 1994 - in relation to the RAF requirement - the one pic I took above was perhaps from DEXSA 1996 then - I will have to do some checking to find out.

You are quite correct about the turbofan development, I have also not been able to find out anything more on it... (perhaps the Americans insisted that the project be dismantled and records/info destroyed, as part of us coming clean getting rid of our Nuclear weapons/MRBM and ICBMs)

Below a pic of MUPSOW during testing (captive carry, flutter and drop tests IIRC).


  • 45e2c27f11f76_large.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 629
There has been a fair deal of speculation over the years that a further developed, or more advanced version of MUPSOW found it's way into Pakistan's hands, manifesting in the form of the Hatf-VII Babur missile (although it could have also come from US Tomahawks that accidentally crash landed in Pakistan) and the later Hatf-VIII RA'AD cruise missile - and/or we assisted them to develop these cruise missiles.

Babur was first tested in 2005 (ground launch I think), RA'AD was first test fired in Aug 2007 (ground) and air test launched in May 2008, it carries a450Kg He warhead, or alternatively a 10-35Kt Nuclear warhead. over a distance of 350Km - Both missiles ability to also target naval targets is mentioned - sounds very similar to MUPSOW (and Torgos)

It's quite possible, as we did indeed sell air-air missiles to them (some say including ToT to locally manufacture the R-Darter) and then of course Raptor 1 and 2. Our long worked on Marlin AMRAAM was also offered to them when it was still T-Darter.

There is the feeling by various sources that they will purchase our A-Darter once it is in production (not sure if it will be ours or Brazil's sale though).


  • 131a.jpg
    189.7 KB · Views: 541
  • 45e2c27f5bc33_large.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 531
  • hs97xu.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 548
Just found this - article from Janes IDR 02-1999


  • IDR 2-1999-08.jpg
    IDR 2-1999-08.jpg
    125.6 KB · Views: 508
This is Torgos, derived from MUPSOW, there was interest from a few parties, including once again Pakistan. It seemed to have been shelved due to there being no buyers and due to local budget cuts. It is possible that it (or it's technology) was sold and a far more developed version is being produced under license elsewhere. As well as a precision, high value target weapon, it was also strongly touted as being an anti ship weapon (was this due to Pakistan seeing it as also fulfilling the role of anti-shipping weapon for them?)

Link to Flight Global article - dated 1999:

Article below courtesy of JDW 24-11-1999

Anyone know more about this project - got any more pics?


  • Torgos - JDW 24-11-1999-04.jpg
    Torgos - JDW 24-11-1999-04.jpg
    216.3 KB · Views: 295
  • Torgos-02.jpg
    66.6 KB · Views: 283
Thanks Graugrun.

I must admit that previously I was a little confused as to the relationaship between MUPSOW and Torgos.

Was Torgos a refinement or replacement for MUPSOW, etc.

Now though, seeing the article state that 2 Torgos could be touted on wing pylons by single engined aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 and F-16 (and by extension, the SAAF's Mirage/Cheetah/Carver) I'm beginning to understand the Torgos as a smaller, lighter (albeit later) complement to the heavier MUPSOW.
Kaiserbill it is often referred to as a refinement or further development of MUPSOW - I guess it's then meant to be it's replacement, however maybe it's compliment too. They certainly also promoted it as an anti ship weapon (ship to ship and surface to ship?), much more than the odd mention that they made of MUPSOW being able to fulfill the anti-ship role.

BTW I'm sure I read that both MUPSOW and Torgos were also tested and intended to be ground launched via a zero-zero launcher, exactly as Skua is launched. So certainly the shore to ship role could be fulfilled.

Below is another small pic off the web showing Torgos from a slightly different angle - I'm sure it was on display at one or more of the DEXSA shows, however I never took any decent photos, nor got a brochure - pity as nowadays it's rather hard to find good pics of it...


  • Torgos 201.jpg
    Torgos 201.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 253
From the high tech to the very low tech - a boosted bomb for use in the toss-bombing fashion that the SAAF pilots used during the Angolan/Border War (toss-bombing as described on Pg # 1 of this thread) - instead of the 8km's that they got on average, they could now get 16km's - and keep further out of range of the massive amounts of sophisticated Soviet anti-aircraft equipment surrounding the target - that lay in waiting for them.

Might not make sense to other Airforces - but it made sense to us (as a poor man's 'glide' bomb...).


  • Boosted Bomb-27.jpg
    Boosted Bomb-27.jpg
    389.7 KB · Views: 279
  • Boosted Bomb-28.jpg
    Boosted Bomb-28.jpg
    419 KB · Views: 310
There's nothing wrong with low tech meeting high.
Cover that bomb with RAM Material, add in some new generation inertial navigation like they are working on for artillery shells, and you'd have a devastating low observable weapon on the cheap.
Graugrun said:
Might not make sense to other Airforces - but it made sense to us (as a poor man's 'glide' bomb...).

There were a few sort of similar concepts to boost range for toss bombing from the UK and USA. The Barne Wallis 'Momentum Bomb' which was nearly built as the Bristol Tychon in the early 60s. It combined both wings and an internal rocket motor and was designed for achieving the toss bomb effect without the aircraft needing to toss the bomb (though it could do that as well for longer ranges).

The US Navy in the 80s added a rocket motor to the Paveway LGB to make the Skipper for some better standoff.

But the SAAF Mk 82s with preformed fragments and the internal motor (Sidewinder/Valkari?) option look like a pretty excellent customised solution combined with the F1AZ. Be interesting to see how its dispersion was at 16km with the F1AZ limited to about six bombs over combat ranges.
Thanks for the input/info compton_effect and Abraham Gubler - we specificaly adopted toss-bombing as a means of delivering munitions onto heavily defended targets in Angola out of necessity (see post #1). With a world-wide arms embargo, and therefore no chance of us obtaining any sort of smart bomb in a hurry - and facing thousands of Cuban/Russian and various other troops with their air defences in Angola, we still had to get the bombs delivered onto the target.

During the 23 year 'Border War', most often our when our troops did larger raids they operated deep into enemy territory (350 Km plus) with no or very limited air-cover, so when we hit a major base and or there was a call for some sort of air intervention, it really was desperately needed!

Abraham - IIRC it was stated that our pilots got it down to a 200m X 200m bomb spread on target 8km's away - not sure on 16 km's with the added rocket dispersion effect what it would be.

Another version of this 'simple type bomb' update was also made in terms of something called a 'Super Stop' IIRC - it had a parachute attached and was designed to penetrate a runway (or other strategic area) going only a third of the way into the ground (with the back half sticking out almost upright). It had a delayed action and movement sensitive fuze - thus they littered the runway denied aircraft access (both by being a physical obstacle sticking out of the ground, as well a blowing up if touched/tampered with). This made clearing up of them very difficult and since they also delay detonated over a period of days they caused further psychological effect. With the fuze being buried underground, it was not as simple as shooting at them from a distance to set them all off - you would have to pretty much shell your own runway to get rid of them in a hurry...Simple but effective.

The downfall would be that the delivering aircraft had to almost fly over the runway to deliver them - a rather hazardous activity - I'm sure that's why it was also not adopted.
I remember seeing a model of the Super Stop at DEXA '94. Nasty thing, the cutaway model had a layer of steel balls for shrapnel.
(Still wish I'd had a camera back then. They were very relaxed at that show. I even climbed on top of the TTD to watch the big screen from the Loatla weapons demonstrations.)
You're right compton_effect - in fact in terms of the steel balls, it seems pretty much most of our bomb and rocket warheads were made with layers of steel balls in an epoxy resin of sorts - much increased lethality (see product info below).

I remember the parachute on the Reutech Superstop (ADBS-145) area denial bomb, however I forgot about the rocket - so it was toss-bombed with the rocket increasing the tossing range, the a parachute deployed ensuring that it impacted at a fairly high angle into the runway (70-90 degrees), thus causing an immediate runway obstruction and allowing for the greatest spread of the steel balls on detonation. The delayed action fuse could be set anywhere within a 150 hour time limit and as mentioned it had anti-tamper properties too.

I used to have the brochure, however over the 20 odd years of collecting brochures, every couple of years I had 'purged' some them as they started taking up too much space. Unfortunately I often got rid of the more obscure and unusual stuff, just like the Superstop bomb, which is a real pity as a lot of what I got rid of would have been perfect and very interesting for this forum...!

I have been trying to re-find info on a lot of what I threw away, as many of the unusual stuff was quite unique, showed clear 'out of the box' thinking on our part and often would have been really successful if deployed.

One of them for instance was the 'Vermin' or 'Platter' bomb - I now only have one or two small fuzzy pictures of it - a very interesting bomb/missile - I will post some on it soon and hopefully someone else can add some more pics and info on it.

Back to the Superstop ADBS-145 though - a link from Flight Global (1997):

Better info and a pic at this link - SA Airforce unofficial site:


  • MK81-82-83 Bombs-01.jpg
    MK81-82-83 Bombs-01.jpg
    333.9 KB · Views: 323
Some more pics of MUPSOW - note the two sub-munitions dangling above it, I have never seen them before and they also look like they represent some of what MUPSOW could deliver (Sub-munitions have often been mentioned as it's primary weapon of delivery).

There are a few other interesting items in the room, one being the FAE (Fuel Air Explosive) bomb, standing upright to the rear of MUPSOW, highlighted against the window, painted in black and light grey 'checks' as such, with both small yellow and purple rings around the top. Those who have the book "Those Who had the Power" should recognize it from there. The FAE is a weapon that we have been rather secretive about...


  • EPSN4164.jpg
    122.2 KB · Views: 291
  • EPSN4165.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 212
  • EPSN4166.jpg
    112.6 KB · Views: 199
  • EPSN4194.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 195
  • EPSN4195.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 219
Excellent, those are the clearest pics of the MUPSOW (inert demonstrator/aerodynamic test vehicle) I've seen yet.

I recall the FAE bomb photo from the book. The one which is in the process of exploding..
If I recall correctly, it was a small pic, relatively indistinct.
I'd assumed it was a generic pic.
I'll have to look through the book again this weekend.

What is very interesting, Graugrun, is that many of your posts/brochures are bearing out much of what was in the book, but which was written in a sort of "conjecture" style, which apparently was how it had to be revised to satisfy people before it could be printed.
Some of it is out there, a lot is not, but the clues are. It's all about piecing the parts together......
kaiserbill said:
So is 1994 the first time MUPSOW was made public?

Apologies - late 1995, see Janes Defence Weekly article below with date at bottom of page included - so I must have then first seen it at DEXSA 1996...

What can I say - old age and memory don't go well together!


  • Mupsow JDW-25-11-1995.jpg
    Mupsow JDW-25-11-1995.jpg
    341.2 KB · Views: 283

Please donate to support the forum.

Top Bottom