SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post30 Jun 2019, 03:42

Difference between specs and actual.
Attachments
JDAM accuracy.jpg
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Jun 2019, 04:43

That all depends on release distance, speed, altitude, and weather conditions. The "30 meter" spec is based on certain conditions and unless they replicated those exactly, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 307
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post30 Jun 2019, 05:03

SpudmanWP wrote:That all depends on release distance, speed, altitude, and weather conditions.


The accelerometers in the weapon all take that into account. The INS is very complex and even takes into account the coriolis effect. What matters the most is the data that is fed to the weapon at the point of launch. The more accurate that start point is, the more accurate the weapon is. The weapon can have degrees of error if it has to do turns, but changes in wind, etc after launch are calculated by the accelerometers in the weapon. If you ever get a chance to tour the Honeywell factory I suggest you do. It's quite fascinating.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Jun 2019, 05:40

The quote from the link proves you wrong. JDAM's CEP spec is only good for 100 seconds. Obviously of the flight time is 50 seconds, the CEP is less, 25 seconds, even less, etc.

INS is not perfect or there would be no use for GPS.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post30 Jun 2019, 23:03

SpudmanWP wrote:That all depends on release distance, speed, altitude, and weather conditions. The "30 meter" spec is based on certain conditions and unless they replicated those exactly, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I'm guessing that for the purpose of this slide, the same standards were being used, otherwise it's an irrelevant slide.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 01:19

I think everyone recognizes that GPS only or INS only is not the best way going forward esp in the face of GPS jamming. That's why there's IGAS/Navstrike and that's why there's multi-mode seekers. Doesn't invalidate LJDAM and LSDB as alternative low cost ways of going around that problem.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 03:57

Even with GPS jammers, it's likely that the jamming isn't 100% effective, lessening the likelihood of a pure INS guidance. It's always good to have options, though, with a mix of seeker types.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post01 Jul 2019, 19:54

A major point of SDB is penetration of the reinforced structures that an enemy can readily proliferate.

Penetrator effectiveness/survival requires the terminal accuracy that you can only get from GPS or some terminal seeker.

LSDB comes with a range limitation brought on by the much less aerodynamic front-end and has less
penetration capability because the hardened nose-cone is removed in that configuration.

It also requires a stand-in platform to do the lasing which is not the problem set that Gray Wolf was designed to solve.

And of course with Gray Wolf you got a turbojet where even the smallest version that TDI has can provide 1.2 kW
of electrical power for those datalinks and seekers.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23559
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Jul 2019, 02:22

USAF: New Raytheon Bomb Ready for Real-World Vetting
03 Jul 2019 Rachel S. Cohen

"The Air Force’s top weapons development official says Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II, or “StormBreaker,” is ready for primetime despite needing to work out some lingering issues.

“Getting them out into the field, right now I think that's the best way for us to wring this out,” Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo said at a recent Air Force Life Cycle Management Center conference. “Get it into the hands of the people using it, figure out what they can do with it that we did not think of, figure out what things are happening in the operational environment that we were not able to replicate and test, and then feed that back into successive upgrades.”

The Pentagon plans to buy 17,000 SDB IIs, split between 12,000 for the Air Force and 5,000 for the Navy, and will fly it on all current Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft as well as the A-10, AC-130J, and MQ-9. StormBreaker was designed as a precision munition that can communicate with nearby aircraft to attack moving and stationary targets in bad weather and notch “multiple kills per pass,” according to the Air Force.

“The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared and millimeter wave radar in its normal mode to give pilots the ability to destroy moving targets, even in adverse weather, from standoff ranges,” Raytheon said in a press release.
“Additionally, the weapon can use its semi-active laser guidance to hit targets.”

As of October 2018, the service planned to spend $1.9 billion on development and $2.6 billion on procurement, the Government Accountability Office reported in May. https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698933.pdf (9.2Mb)

StormBreaker’s ability to communicate with its host aircraft needs more vetting, Genatempo said, and other fixes are already being added into the current production batch, Lot 4. Its radio may not be fixed until Lot 6 or 7, and the service plans to address parts that will be outdated in Lot 8.…"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... tting.aspx
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Jul 2019, 09:45

Looking back. The USAF originally planned to buy 12,000 SDB I which they did and which ended in 2011/12. The unit cost then was $100k dropping to $70k. Then by 2015, they restarted the orders and ordered another 20,000 till today with another 15,000 planned thru 2024 of which 6,800 will be approved in FY 20 at a $36k unit price.

With the same cost reduction trajectory of the SDB II, won't be surprised to see the same happening together with the ramping up of F-35 orders.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post06 Jul 2019, 00:55

So the Air Force abandoned an effort that featured datalinks as a first-class citizen for a weapons system that even after protracted development still has datalink issues.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 00:08

weasel1962 wrote:Looking back. The USAF originally planned to buy 12,000 SDB I which they did and which ended in 2011/12. The unit cost then was $100k dropping to $70k. Then by 2015, they restarted the orders and ordered another 20,000 till today with another 15,000 planned thru 2024 of which 6,800 will be approved in FY 20 at a $36k unit price.

With the same cost reduction trajectory of the SDB II, won't be surprised to see the same happening together with the ramping up of F-35 orders.


From a Boeing perspective, SDB is virtually a JDAM derivative. They share many of the same suppliers,
processes, and production methods with the resulting economies of scale for JDAM translating to SDB.
And the main cost driver for SDB has been the wingkit.

Quite why SDB II would have the same cost trajectory is unclear given that's a far more complex weapon where
the main cost drive is a very intricate seeker stack and a datalink which is still iffy in terms of reliability.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 10:38

marauder2048 wrote:From a Boeing perspective, SDB is virtually a JDAM derivative. They share many of the same suppliers,
processes, and production methods with the resulting economies of scale for JDAM translating to SDB.
And the main cost driver for SDB has been the wingkit.

Quite why SDB II would have the same cost trajectory is unclear given that's a far more complex weapon where
the main cost drive is a very intricate seeker stack and a datalink which is still iffy in terms of reliability.


It's yet to be seen if the SDBII can reach the same/similar cost trajectory as the SDB but my 2 cents is that it could/should be feasible/possible due to a combination of economy of scale (if a large/huge number of these weapons are to be ordered), miniaturization of components (which has a direct result in terms of reducing costs) and as it happens with the SDB, the sharing with many of the existing suppliers, processes, and production methods is also present. For example:
- The Millimeter-Wave (active) Radar components of the SDBII seems to share with existing suppliers, processes, and production methods of the Longbow Hellfire but with the diference that they are smaller (miniaturized) and thus cheaper. And the same should also apply to the IR and Laser components of the SDBII.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Jul 2019, 17:18

SDB1 is Boeing while SDB2 is Raytheon.

Side-note, the new Laser SDB1 has the LJDAM's seeker.

vzlBOpJ[1].png
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

squirrelshoes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post17 Aug 2019, 13:36

I wonder where the JDAM-ER falls into all this talk of SDBs, SDB2s, JDAMs, LJDAMs, and LSDBs.

I remember reading something about Boeing developing it for another country (Australia?) so not clear if any actual interest from USA, but one would think the kit would be even cheaper than SDB and applicable for missions requiring a bigger punch and more standoff range than JDAM. Maybe more applicable to B-2s and B-21s, but if you want an F-35 to be able to put a couple 2,000lb JDAMs on a heavily defended target from >40 miles out, why not? JSOW-C would be better for hardened targets but sometimes you're hitting things like buildings, hangars, etc.

It would be gut wrenching from an economics perspective firing expensive SAMs at gliding JDAMs.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests