SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2013, 02:58
by popcorn
Good progress being made. Looking forward to F-35 SDB weapons testing in the not-so-distant future.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Tests.aspx

Raytheon and the Air Force completed a series of flight tests for the Small Diameter Bomb II that culminated in hitting ground targets moving at operationally representative speeds, announced the company. "These tests showcase the game-changing capability of Raytheon's tri-mode seeker to detect, track, and engage moving targets in adverse weather," said John O'Brien, the company's SDB II program director, in the company's Oct. 29 release. He said "these successes" demonstrated Raytheon's "readiness to progress the SDB II program to the system verification review and milestone C." Passing a milestone C review would clear the SDB II program to initiate weapon production. SDB II is designed to hit stationary and moving ground targets from standoff ranges of more than 40 nautical miles.

RE: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2013, 14:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
and the ability to carry eight of them.... This is going to change the way that sortie planning is done.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 08:53
by spazsinbad
Small Diameter Bomb II nears end of development phase
26 June 2014 RAYTHEON PR

"Latest flight tests move program closer to production

TUCSON, Ariz., June 26, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and the U.S. Air Force concluded a series of flight tests for the Small Diameter Bomb II culminating in direct hits on stationary land targets. The successful tests further position the SDB II program to move from engineering, manufacturing, development phase to low rate initial production.

Using upgraded hardware and electronics during extended periods of flight, SDB II successfully acquired and engaged several stationary targets.

"Detecting stationary targets amidst the clutter of battlefield environments without using latitude and longitude presents a difficult challenge for most weapons today, but not SDB II," said Dr. Taylor W. Lawrence, Raytheon Missile Systems president. "Acquiring stationary targets with the same seeker that can identify and track moving targets demonstrates the dynamic capability this new weapon brings to the warfighter."

SDB II can hit targets from a range of more than 40 nautical miles. Its powerful warhead can destroy armored targets, while keeping collateral damage to a minimum through a small explosive footprint. The highly accurate SDB II offers warfighters the flexibility to change targets through a datalink that passes inflight updates to the weapon.

"These latest tests showcase our tri-mode seeker's game-changing capability to acquire, track, engage and destroy both stationary and moving targets in adverse weather," said John O'Brien, Raytheon Small Diameter Bomb II program director. "Upcoming live fire tests will prove the end-to-end capability of SDB II and will demonstrate the program's readiness to progress to System Verification Review and Milestone C, clearing the way for low rate initial production."..."

Source: http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2589

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2014, 08:40
by spazsinbad
F-35, F/A-18E/F, F-16 activities have begun
14 Jul 2014 Raytheon Company

"LONDON, July 14, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force have begun Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) integration activities on the F-35, F/A-18E/F, and F-16 aircrafts. Preliminary SDB II fit checks and pit tests have been completed on the F-35, supporting the Joint Strike Fighter's ability to carry eight SDB IIs internally....

..."Beginning the integration efforts on different aircraft is an important first step in bringing SDB II's capabilities to other front line fighters," said John O'Brien, Raytheon SDB II program director. "With the start of low-rate initial production right around the corner, SDB II will soon be in the hands of our warfighters and making a difference on the battlefield."

Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force are completing a series of flight tests that will move the SDB II program closer to Milestone C, the gateway to begin low-rate production.

SDB II can strike targets from a range of more than 40 nautical miles, with a dynamic warhead that can destroy both soft and armored targets, while keeping collateral damage to a minimum through a small explosive footprint. The highly accurate SDB II offers warfighters the flexibility to change targets through a secure datalink that passes in-flight updates to the weapon.

"SDB II integration on multiple platforms will allow more warfighters to take advantage of the tri-mode seeker's game-changing capability to acquire, track, engage and destroy both stationary and moving targets in adverse weather," said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon Air Warfare Systems Vice President. "Upcoming flight tests and live fire shots will further demonstrate the end-to-end capability of SDB II."

About SDB II
SDB II employs Raytheon's uncooled tri-mode seeker. The new seeker operates in three modes: millimeter-wave radar, uncooled imaging infrared and semi-active laser. These three modes enable the weapon to seek and destroy targets, even in adverse weather conditions from standoff ranges.

The DOD has validated SDB II as a weapon that meets a critical warfighter need and has invested more than $700 million in the SDB II program...."

Source: http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2603

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 08:54
by spazsinbad
Raytheon SDB II for F-15E and F-35 Nears Low-rate Production
16 Jul 2014 David Donald

"...Platforms
SDB II entered the engineering manufacturing development phase in August 2010, and that is scheduled to continue until 2017. LRIP weapons will be fielded first on the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle, which has been used for a number of tests that have verified the weapon’s capability against moving targets. The majority of EMD flight trials have already been completed, with only a few fully guided tests left to be accomplished during this month.

In addition to the F-15E, the SDB II is considered a priority for the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C for the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, although it would also be applicable to the Air Force’s F-35A. Fit-checks were completed early last year to verify that the Joint Strike Fighter could carry four SDB IIs in each weapons bay alongside an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

SDB II is planned for inclusion in the Block 4A iteration of the F-35, which is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability around 2021. Raytheon (Chalet C7-9, OE9) and the JSF team are shortly to begin pit-drop tests from the F-35’s bay before increasingly complex air-drop tests. These begin with jettison test vehicles to verify safe separation, control test vehicles with initial guidance package and finally guided test vehicles with full guidance systems and telemetry equipment. In terms of the F-35 itself, some integration is required in the operational flight program software.

Although the F-15E and F-35 are the main priorities for SDB II, the weapon is also applicable to many other U.S. tactical aircraft, including the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper. Raytheon has received approval to offer the weapon for export to certain partner nations, and it has received considerable interest. To support this campaign the SDB II has been fit-checked on the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F/A-18."

Caption: "Four GBU-53/B SDB IIs can be fitted into each internal bay of the F-35 alongside an Amraam."
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... -pic-1.jpg

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... production

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 02:33
by spazsinbad
Small Diameter Bomb II glides toward Milestone C
04 Sep 2014 RAYTHEON

"Latest flight test series further demonstrates new weapon's capability
TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 4, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) and the U.S. Air Force completed three successful Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) Guided Test Vehicle (GTV) flights against stationary and moving targets, resulting in direct hits. The flight tests are the last GTVs required prior to Milestone C and the start of low-rate initial production.

"These guided tests were successfully accomplished against separate targets in both moving and static scenarios that included both wheeled and tracked vehicles," said John O'Brien, Raytheon SDB II program director. "The ability to classify targets and make targeting decisions based on that classification is a revolutionary capability possessed by no other weapon or seeker today."

During the test, SDB II's tri-mode seeker used sensor data to determine whether the vehicle was wheeled or tracked, aiding in target identification and prioritization. Upcoming live-fire shots will further demonstrate the end-to-end capability of SDB II and its readiness to enter production.

"SDB II will bring game-changing capability to the warfighter," said O'Brien. "The government and industry team looks forward to the upcoming Milestone C decision, so we can transition SDB II into production and deliver it to the warfighters who need it."

Two live fire tests are scheduled to be completed in the coming weeks, which will utilize live warheads and fuzes on the SDB II against tactically representative targets...."

Source: http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2636

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 04:48
by KamenRiderBlade
What is going to happen to the original SDB once SDB II goes into IOC?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 11:50
by cantaz
KamenRiderBlade wrote:What is going to happen to the original SDB once SDB II goes into IOC?


SDB I will be the cheaper alternative for static targets. The I/II are meant to be complimentary, not a sequence of replacement.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 16:21
by SpudmanWP
SDB1 is also a better bunker buster than SDB2.

Boing is also developing a LGB version of SDB1 that will allow pinpoint and moving target modes while still keeping the low cost and better penetration of SDB1. It is going to use the low-cost seeker from LJDAM.

Image

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -contract/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 17:07
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:SDB1 is also a better bunker buster than SDB2.

Boing is also developing a LGB version of SDB1 that will allow pinpoint and moving target modes while still keeping the low cost and better penetration of SDB1. It is going to use the low-cost seeker from LJDAM.

Image

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -contract/


I keep wondering why they don't put a droppable booster on the tail end.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2014, 21:10
by cantaz
The present wing package might not have much leeway relative to CoG changes.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 00:06
by count_to_10
Something tells me we are going to need a whole lot of cheep guided bombs sooner rather than later.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 04:04
by sferrin
cantaz wrote:The present wing package might not have much leeway relative to CoG changes.


I was thinking they could just leave the wings closed until the booster burned out and dropped off. Thing something like a RIM-67 configuration with the booster being about as long as the SDB. Of course the aerodynamics could be completely wrong for those speeds/altitudes. Or maybe it becomes an SDB 3. An AIM-120-length boost-glide weapon.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 22:25
by mixelflick
spazsinbad wrote:
Raytheon SDB II for F-15E and F-35 Nears Low-rate Production
16 Jul 2014 David Donald

"...Platforms
SDB II entered the engineering manufacturing development phase in August 2010, and that is scheduled to continue until 2017. LRIP weapons will be fielded first on the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle, which has been used for a number of tests that have verified the weapon’s capability against moving targets. The majority of EMD flight trials have already been completed, with only a few fully guided tests left to be accomplished during this month.

In addition to the F-15E, the SDB II is considered a priority for the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C for the U.S. Marine Corps and Navy, although it would also be applicable to the Air Force’s F-35A. Fit-checks were completed early last year to verify that the Joint Strike Fighter could carry four SDB IIs in each weapons bay alongside an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile.

SDB II is planned for inclusion in the Block 4A iteration of the F-35, which is scheduled to achieve initial operating capability around 2021. Raytheon (Chalet C7-9, OE9) and the JSF team are shortly to begin pit-drop tests from the F-35’s bay before increasingly complex air-drop tests. These begin with jettison test vehicles to verify safe separation, control test vehicles with initial guidance package and finally guided test vehicles with full guidance systems and telemetry equipment. In terms of the F-35 itself, some integration is required in the operational flight program software.

Although the F-15E and F-35 are the main priorities for SDB II, the weapon is also applicable to many other U.S. tactical aircraft, including the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper. Raytheon has received approval to offer the weapon for export to certain partner nations, and it has received considerable interest. To support this campaign the SDB II has been fit-checked on the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F/A-18."

Caption: "Four GBU-53/B SDB IIs can be fitted into each internal bay of the F-35 alongside an Amraam."
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... -pic-1.jpg

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... production


This looks like a 12 SDB2 load out?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 22:57
by zerion
mixelflick wrote:This looks like a 12 SDB2 load out?


How? I see 4 in one bay. The article says only 4 SDB+ 1 AMRAAM per bay. How do you figure 12

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2014, 23:59
by popcorn
zerion wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This looks like a 12 SDB2 load out?


How? I see 4 in one bay. The article says only 4 SDB+ 1 AMRAAM per bay. How do you figure 12

Probably the CUDA effect...

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 00:13
by zerion
popcorn wrote:
zerion wrote:
mixelflick wrote:This looks like a 12 SDB2 load out?


How? I see 4 in one bay. The article says only 4 SDB+ 1 AMRAAM per bay. How do you figure 12

Probably the CUDA effect...


:wink:

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 03:00
by KamenRiderBlade
Was he thinking of not carrying any missiles and using the AIM-120 rack to mount 2 more SDB's? for a total of 6x SDB's per bay and 12x SDB's per plane?

If that's what he is thinking, that sounds like a BAD idea.

All airplanes should carry 2 missiles at least.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 13:10
by count_to_10
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Was he thinking of not carrying any missiles and using the AIM-120 rack to mount 2 more SDB's? for a total of 6x SDB's per bay and 12x SDB's per plane?

If that's what he is thinking, that sounds like a BAD idea.

All airplanes should carry 2 missiles at least.

Not much point if the target has no aircraft.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 13:23
by KamenRiderBlade
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Was he thinking of not carrying any missiles and using the AIM-120 rack to mount 2 more SDB's? for a total of 6x SDB's per bay and 12x SDB's per plane?

If that's what he is thinking, that sounds like a BAD idea.

All airplanes should carry 2 missiles at least.

Not much point if the target has no aircraft.


Fair enough

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 21:09
by count_to_10
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Was he thinking of not carrying any missiles and using the AIM-120 rack to mount 2 more SDB's? for a total of 6x SDB's per bay and 12x SDB's per plane?

If that's what he is thinking, that sounds like a BAD idea.

All airplanes should carry 2 missiles at least.

Not much point if the target has no aircraft.


Fair enough

Though they have been working for quite a while on giving the AMRAAM the capabilities of the HARM -- in which case you might carry them for defense against pop-up SAM threats.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2014, 21:25
by zerion
Could an SDB be dropped from that station? It would be hanging sideways wouldn't it? So the SDB would have to roll 90 deg. instead of 180. Or else you would need a special rack configuration to hold them sideways. Am I right?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 02:17
by delvo
When it's open, it's close to vertical, leaning just a bit out. I've seen what the angle was and am not sure I remember it exactly, but have 13° stuck in my mind. If it's not that, it's something close to that. And I expect anything that's supposed to roll itself over to do so by a method that includes detecting the angle it's presently at and acting accordingly, not just so it would know when to stop rolling even if it was released exactly upside-down, but also because the plane releasing it could be banking at the time, and because that kind of gyroscopic sensor would be useful for maneuvering even after it's upright.

But somebody would need to invent an SDB holder that only holds two SDBs. And that will probably cost about 80 billion dollars and take 14 years to test & certify it for use only under 20000 feet...

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2014, 03:19
by zerion
delvo wrote:When it's open, it's close to vertical, leaning just a bit out. I've seen what the angle was and am not sure I remember it exactly, but have 13° stuck in my mind. If it's not that, it's something close to that. And I expect anything that's supposed to roll itself over to do so by a method that includes detecting the angle it's presently at and acting accordingly, not just so it would know when to stop rolling even if it was released exactly upside-down, but also because the plane releasing it could be banking at the time, and because that kind of gyroscopic sensor would be useful for maneuvering even after it's upright.

But somebody would need to invent an SDB holder that only holds two SDBs. And that will probably cost about 80 billion dollars and take 14 years to test & certify it for use only under 20000 feet...


That's what I figured. Thanks.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2014, 13:17
by uclass
count_to_10 wrote:Though they have been working for quite a while on giving the AMRAAM the capabilities of the HARM -- in which case you might carry them for defense against pop-up SAM threats.

T-3 is still on the go:

http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadA ... 2147487546

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2014, 16:04
by SpudmanWP
That link is dead.

Is this the link (the 2015 Darpa Budget request)?

http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadA ... 2147487546

It shows a 2013 budget for T3, but nothing for 2014 or 2015. That does not sound good.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 01:18
by popcorn
Excellent!

http://defense-update.com/20150216_sdbi ... _test.html


Raytheon Company and the U.S. Air Force completed two successful Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) all-up round live fire test flights that demonstrated the weapon’s ability to detect, track and destroy moving targets. The flight tests that took place at the White Sands Missile Test Range, were the final flight events required prior to Milestone C and the start of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP).

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 02:41
by arrow-nautics
Broken link popcorn, I used copy link location :D

http://defense-update.com/20150216_sdbii_test.html

defence-update purposely inserts irrelevant characters after the new page opens, likely to discourage linking

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 04:20
by popcorn
arrow-nautics wrote:Broken link popcorn, I used copy link location :D

http://defense-update.com/20150216_sdbii_test.html

defence-update purposely inserts irrelevant characters after the new page opens, likely to discourage linking

Thanks

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 13:29
by cantaz
Defense Updates wrote:The F35 can carry two SDB II racks in each of its two weapons bays, for a total of 16 SDB II load, in addition to two AMRAAM air/air missiles.


Hell of a typo.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 17:04
by neptune
[quote="mixelflick..fielded first on the U.S. Air Force’s Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle, which has been used for a number of tests that have verified the weapon’s capability against moving targets. ..Although the F-15E and F-35 are the main priorities for SDB II, the weapon is also applicable to many other U.S. tactical aircraft, including the unmanned MQ-9 Reaper. ..][/quote]

The F-15E deploys SDB II from its BRU-61/A four-weapon carriage system, which allows the aircraft to carry seven lots of four of the weapon at one time. :)

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 18:48
by spazsinbad
Not sure what the typo is 'cantaz' - you did not specify - however on first page of this very thread there is this: http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... -pic-1.jpg multiply by TWO if you care for a total loadout which is said to be? Perhaps you meant 'INTERNAL' (the word) was missing from underlined text? Whatever.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 19:12
by SpudmanWP
spazsinbad wrote:Not sure what the typo is 'cantaz' -
cantaz wrote:
Defense Updates wrote:The F35 can carry ONE SDB II rack in each of its two weapons bays, for a total of 8 SDB II load, in addition to two AMRAAM air/air missiles.


Hell of a typo.


Spaz


See the bolded correction above

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2015, 21:40
by spazsinbad

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 11:31
by spazsinbad
Pentagon's most expensive fighter ever won't even be able to carry the most advanced weapons because of design flaw
02 Mar 2015 Zoe Szathm

"...Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 program, said in an Inside Defense interview last week that changes are being made to the jet so it can be released on schedule.

DellaVedova also said that Lockheed Martin will likely get the alterations contract down the line in 2015.

'This is not a new issue to us,' DellaVedova told Inside Defense. 'We've been working with the SDB II program office and their contractors since 2007.

'The fit issues have been known and documented and there were larger and more substantial modifications needed to support SDB II that have already been incorporated into production F-35 aircraft.


'These minor or remaining changes were put on hold until the aircraft reached a sufficient level of maturity to ensure that the needed changes would not adversely impact any ongoing SDB [II] developments.'

Inside Defense reported that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program office so far has not publicly recognized problems - and that eight internal and 16 external SDB IIs are in fact meant to go on the F-35B...."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -flaw.html

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 14:31
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:
[b]Pentagon's most expensive fighter ever won't even be able to carry the most advanced weapons because of design flaw[/b]


spazsinbad wrote:'This is not a new issue to us,' DellaVedova told Inside Defense. 'We've been working with the SDB II program office and their contractors since 2007.

'The fit issues have been known and documented and there were larger and more substantial modifications needed to support SDB II that have already been incorporated into production F-35 aircraft.


Typical gutter journalism.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 17:38
by blindpilot
sferrin wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
[b]Pentagon's most expensive fighter ever won't even be able to carry the most advanced weapons because of design flaw[/b]


spazsinbad wrote:'This is not a new issue to us,' DellaVedova told Inside Defense. 'We've been working with the SDB II program office and their contractors since 2007.

'The fit issues have been known and documented and there were larger and more substantial modifications needed to support SDB II that have already been incorporated into production F-35 aircraft.


Typical gutter journalism.


This type of journalism is not even "gutter" misleading sensationalism. It is flat out lying. It is not a "design flaw," when design changes (see B weight issue changes etc.) fully measure the advantages to a change, aware of and planning for the negative impacts those adjustments would create. It is a design change reality well understood during the design change decision. None of this is even remotely new. Everything was on the table when they changed the bay configuration, knowing some adjustment to that design and schedule, was not only possible, but likely at about this time. So pretty much "on schedule" they are dealing with the issue as the SDB II has matured, as they knew they would when they made the bay changes for the B. Beyond that the fine tuning will happen and the SDB II will be fitted in good order.

All that changed is the B moved back to "objective" implentation as they knew it might, in order to pick up all the other adjustments the bay change created at the same time. Let the Super Hornet take SDB II lead as the F 15E has for the Air Force. No one is saying cancel the F-35A because the F-15E is implementing first. The reporter in this case (Zoe) rushing in from filing her last story on "football player charged with rape," would probably have to ask the 12 year old standing next to her at an air show, "Which airplane is in the sky now?, and "which one of those thingies is an Sbdbd?" God help us.

BP

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 18:21
by XanderCrews
Foxtrot alpha is on it, I refused to click.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 21:17
by spazsinbad
Probably Zoe did not invent the headline and to give her some credit she also pointedly included the VellaI'mOverItVedova long quote which explained it all - so go Zoe - good one.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 22:19
by newmanfrigan
XanderCrews wrote:Foxtrot alpha is on it, I refused to click.



I always refuse to click. Shame, because they have nice photographs there. I don't think I've ever read one single piece on there that doesn't have multiple obvious factual errors.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 17:11
by count_to_10

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2015, 20:53
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/04/new-small-diameter-bomb-doesnt-fit-inside-marines-f-35b/

The comments are painful.



Stupidity is an ugly thing to see in action.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 01:18
by spazsinbad
Another GO at the F-35 because it will NOT be fully capable until some future time. Sheesh - 'news' to those not following or understanding developments. This will not end until the fat lady sings in 2023 or thereabouts.
F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022
09 Mar 2015 Kris Osborn

"...The SDB II recently completed successful live-fire testing and is slated to enter full-rate production later this year. Ultimately, the Air Force plans to acquire 12,000 SDB II weapons — which will enter service by 2017, service officials said.

Most of the [b]testing of the SBD II
thus far has been on an Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter jet, however the weapon has been fitted and tested on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Engineers are also working on plans to integrate the bomb onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-16 as well, Raytheon officials said.

The Air Force has done some electronics testing with the SDB II and the F-35A and done a successful “fit” test to ensure the weapon can be carried in the internal weapons bay by the aircraft, JSF officials said. However, the weapon will need the JSF program’s 4a software drop before it can be operational on the F-35A – and that is not slated to happen until 2022.

The JSF program developmental strategy is, in part, grounded upon a series of incremental software drops,” each one adding new capability to the platform. In total there are more than 10 billion individual lines of code for the system, broken down into increments and “Blocks,” F-35 program office officials explained.

The Marine Corps short-take-off –and-landing variant of the JSF, the F-35B, is slated to reach operational status later this year with software block 2B. Block 2B provides basic close air support such as the ability to fire an AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or GBU 12 (laser-guided aerial bomb), JSF officials said.

The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next iteration of the software, called 3i. Described as a technical refresh of Block 2B, 3i will also enable the aircraft to drop JDAMs, GBU 12s and AMRAAMs.

JSF officials point out that the F-35A will have substantial close-air support capabilities when it reaches full operational capability in 2018. This includes the ability to fire an internal gun and drop a range of munitions including AIM-9X weapons, AMRAAMs, GBU 12s, GBU 31s and the Small Diameter Bomb I.

The SDB II will be integrated with what’s called JSF software Block 4a – a next-generation iteration of the software for the aircraft which service engineers are already working on.

Block 4 will be broken down into two separate increments; Block 4a is slated to be ready by 2021 or 2022 and Block 4B is planned for 2023. The first portion of Block 4 software funding, roughly $12 million, arrived in the 2014 budget, Air Force officials said.

Block 4 will also increase the weapons envelope for the U.S. variant [QUE?] [mebbe USAF was meant?] of the fighter jet. A big part of the developmental calculus for Block 4 is to work on the kinds of enemy air defense systems and weaponry the aircraft may face from the 2020’s through the 2040’s and beyond, service officials explained."

Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... -2022.html

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2015, 03:31
by thomonkey
spazsinbad wrote:Another GO at the F-35 because it will NOT be fully capable until some future time. Sheesh - 'news' to those not following or understanding developments. This will not end until the fat lady sings in 2023 or thereabouts.
F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022
09 Mar 2015 Kris Osborn

"...The SDB II recently completed successful live-fire testing and is slated to enter full-rate production later this year. Ultimately, the Air Force plans to acquire 12,000 SDB II weapons — which will enter service by 2017, service officials said.

Most of the [b]testing of the SBD II
thus far has been on an Air Force F-15 Eagle fighter jet, however the weapon has been fitted and tested on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Engineers are also working on plans to integrate the bomb onto the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-16 as well, Raytheon officials said.

The Air Force has done some electronics testing with the SDB II and the F-35A and done a successful “fit” test to ensure the weapon can be carried in the internal weapons bay by the aircraft, JSF officials said. However, the weapon will need the JSF program’s 4a software drop before it can be operational on the F-35A – and that is not slated to happen until 2022.

The JSF program developmental strategy is, in part, grounded upon a series of incremental software drops,” each one adding new capability to the platform. In total there are more than 10 billion individual lines of code for the system, broken down into increments and “Blocks,” F-35 program office officials explained.

The Marine Corps short-take-off –and-landing variant of the JSF, the F-35B, is slated to reach operational status later this year with software block 2B. Block 2B provides basic close air support such as the ability to fire an AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or GBU 12 (laser-guided aerial bomb), JSF officials said.

The Air Force plans to reach operational status with its F-35A in 2016 using the next iteration of the software, called 3i. Described as a technical refresh of Block 2B, 3i will also enable the aircraft to drop JDAMs, GBU 12s and AMRAAMs.

JSF officials point out that the F-35A will have substantial close-air support capabilities when it reaches full operational capability in 2018. This includes the ability to fire an internal gun and drop a range of munitions including AIM-9X weapons, AMRAAMs, GBU 12s, GBU 31s and the Small Diameter Bomb I.

The SDB II will be integrated with what’s called JSF software Block 4a – a next-generation iteration of the software for the aircraft which service engineers are already working on.

Block 4 will be broken down into two separate increments; Block 4a is slated to be ready by 2021 or 2022 and Block 4B is planned for 2023. The first portion of Block 4 software funding, roughly $12 million, arrived in the 2014 budget, Air Force officials said.

Block 4 will also increase the weapons envelope for the U.S. variant [QUE?] [mebbe USAF was meant?] of the fighter jet. A big part of the developmental calculus for Block 4 is to work on the kinds of enemy air defense systems and weaponry the aircraft may face from the 2020’s through the 2040’s and beyond, service officials explained."

Source: http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... -2022.html


the important thing is that the people that actually matter aren't complaining any. Just talking heads trying to get a few hits on their web page.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2015, 14:14
by bring_it_on
"SDB II will fit in the F-35B," Rear Adm Mahr said. "We have to move one hydraulic line and one wire bundle about a half-inch each to make it fit".

He noted that SDB II was still in development and would not even be ready for integration until Block IV of the F-35 programme was complete.


http://www.janes.com/article/50036/f-35 ... capability

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2015, 18:48
by spazsinbad
Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II approved for production, deployment
15 May 2015 James Drew

"The Pentagon has given Milestone C approval to Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II programme, moving the tri-mode seeker weapon to production and deployment with the US Air Force on the F-15E Strike Eagle....

...“The program was a Milestone B in the summer of 2010,” he says, referring to the point when a military programme enters the development and testing phase. “The goal of the cost per weapon was about $180,000. It’s coming in at about $115,000.”

The air force has already started integrating the weapon with its first aircraft, the F-15 Strike Eagle. The Navy plans to integrate it first with the F/A-18 Super Hornet and then with its threshold aircraft, the F-35C and F-35B Joint Strike Fighters....

...Boeing’s Increment 1 Small Diameter Bomb is being heavily used in the air campaign against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the air force says. The bomb’s smaller diameter allows each fighter to carry more weapons per sortie."

Photo: http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/geta ... emid=59995

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... on-412401/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 02:35
by popcorn
Makes me curious how many dumb bombs they still purchase or if they just rely those in inventory?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2015, 06:34
by sferrin
popcorn wrote:Makes me curious how many dumb bombs they still purchase or if they just rely those in inventory?


Dumb bombs form the core of all JDAMs. Why would you stop production? (Those things don't have an infinite shelf life and you don't want to kill already efficient production lines.)

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 07:52
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:
Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II approved for production, deployment
Still really disappointed that it won't fit the F-35B properly from the start. Seems development started late enough for the weapon to be designed properly instead of having to modify the plane.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 08:07
by mrigdon
lookieloo wrote:Still really disappointed that it won't fit the F-35B properly from the start. Seems development started late enough for the weapon to be designed properly instead of having to modify the plane.


Given the choice between moving a couple of hoses half an inch or lopping off the back end of the missile (where the fins are), I think the program office made the right decision. At this point, there's only a few dozen F-35Bs built, versus thousands of SDBs that will be manufactured. This wouldn't be a big deal except for click bait :roll:

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 08:22
by lookieloo
mrigdon wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Still really disappointed that it won't fit the F-35B properly from the start. Seems development started late enough for the weapon to be designed properly instead of having to modify the plane.


Given the choice between moving a couple of hoses half an inch or lopping off the back end of the missile (where the fins are), I think the program office made the right decision. At this point, there's only a few dozen F-35Bs built, versus thousands of SDBs that will be manufactured. This wouldn't be a big deal except for click bait :roll:
Conversely... why modify the expensive thing that's already in-production instead of the cheap thing that ISN'T in-production yet?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 09:37
by thepointblank
lookieloo wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
lookieloo wrote:Still really disappointed that it won't fit the F-35B properly from the start. Seems development started late enough for the weapon to be designed properly instead of having to modify the plane.


Given the choice between moving a couple of hoses half an inch or lopping off the back end of the missile (where the fins are), I think the program office made the right decision. At this point, there's only a few dozen F-35Bs built, versus thousands of SDBs that will be manufactured. This wouldn't be a big deal except for click bait :roll:
Conversely... why modify the expensive thing that's already in-production instead of the cheap thing that ISN'T in-production yet?

Because modifying the F-35B affects just one program, and SDB-II affects multiple programs and platforms? Imagine if they decided to modify SDB; they might have to redo weight balance, and redo integration and separation testing on other platforms.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2015, 18:21
by neptune
[quote="lookieloo"][... At this point, there's only a few dozen F-35Bs built, ...quote]

...that is kind of the point, also "tidying up" the weapons bay allows that recovered space to be used for other systems in the future....refining/ maturing the product.. :)

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2015, 22:13
by spazsinbad
AND for MOPping Up here is some more:
Boeing expects more Massive Ordnance Penetrator orders
18 May 2015 James Drew

"...In another development, Rub says there’s still a place for Boeing’s Small Diameter Bomb as Raytheon completes development of its Increment II system for the air force.

Raytheon’s programme received Milestone C approval from the Pentagon earlier this month, allowing the company to move forward with production and deployment on the F-15E Strike Eagle.

“We believe our distinguisher really is cost,” she says of Boeing’s SDB glide bomb. “It’s cost, it’s battle-proven, it’s ready now, there’s an active line and it can go out and do what it needs to do.

“When you look at the war that’s being fought, you really need a quick, cheap weapon that can prosecute moving targets, and that’s what Boeing can provide.”

Boeing says it has enough orders, both from the US government and its allies, to keep production going even as Raytheon’s tri-mode seeker weapon is fielded with the air force and navy."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-412453/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2015, 03:50
by spazsinbad
Back to SDB II
World’s Most Sophisticated Bomb Ready for Production
12 Jun 2015 Chris Pocock

"...Despite the sophistication, the SDB II is “affordable,” according to Sweetman. U.S. Air Force assistant acquisition secretary Dr. William LaPlante said recently that the cost per round will be about $115,000, some $65,000 below the goal set when the SDB II entered development five years ago. Raytheon has managed its workforce well and controlled costs, he said.

The new weapon will be fielded first on U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles, where the maximum load will be 28 bombs, although 16 will be the normal loadout, all on fuselage stations. Then the U.S. Navy will add it to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The SDB II is also slated for the F-35B and F-35C versions of the Joint Strike Fighter. The smaller internal weapons bays of the F-35B can each still carry four SDB IIs, plus an AMRAAM missile. But in any case, the Lightning II will not receive the Block 4 software required to drop the SDB II until 2022.

Jeff White, Raytheon’s SDB II business development manager, told AIN that export prospects for the weapon include operators of the F-15E, and all 13 of the F-35 international countries, because it will come ready-integrated with the stealth fighter. Raytheon’s British subsidiary is pitching the SDB II as a “low-cost, low-risk” alternative to MBDA’s proposal to meet the UK’s SPEAR (Selectable Precision Effects At Range) Capability 3 requirement. There is potential for work on the SDB II worth some $500 million to be placed in the UK, including electronic subassemblies, fuses and integration onto the Eurofighter Typhoon, according to TJ Marsden, chief weapons system engineer with Raytheon UK.

Meanwhile, White told AIN that Raytheon is working on “translation software” for low-cost integration onto the F-16. That would allow European countries now flying the Fighting Falcon to start training and using the SDB II before their F-35s arrive."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... production

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2015, 04:39
by bring_it_on

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2015, 20:00
by spazsinbad
USAF awards Raytheon $31M for first small diameter bomb II buy
13 Jun 2015 James Drew

"The US Air Force has placed its first low-rate initial production order for Raytheon’s newly developed small diameter bomb II, securing the first 144 Lot 1 weapons of what is expected to be a minimum 17,000-bomb buy....

...In a June 12 contract announcement, the Pentagon says the $31 million deal with Raytheon buys 156 weapons including 144 live munitions, eight SDB II weapon load crew and munitions maintenance training rounds, four explosive ordnance disposal trainers, and product data.

The deal comes as the SDB II programme moves to into 28-shot “government confidence test” phase.

“That 28-launch programme will take us probably at least nine months, so we’re looking at third quarter of 2016 before operational testing will begin,” says SDB II program director Jim Sweetman in an interview with Flightglobal.

Raytheon is banking on carriage of the SDB II internally on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to open future international sales opportunities. Integration is currently slated for the F-35 Block 4 configuration for initial operational capability in 2022.

Last thing I heard was Block 4.2. As we get closer, the details will have to be flushed out,” says Sweetman....

...The US government intends to buy 17,000 SDB II weapons in total – 12,000 for the air force and 5,000 for the navy. SDB II entered development in 2010 and passed its milestone C review in May.

Lot 1 is due for delivery by May 2017, at which point the company expects to start taking international orders for JSF with initial delivery in 2020 or 2021."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ii-413470/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2015, 05:28
by spazsinbad
Another SDB II story.
Raytheon’s SDB-II To Bridge Gap To JSF
15 Jun 2015 Angus Batey

"...“We start exporting SDB-II in Lot 4, in the 2017/18 timeframe,” says Jeff White, Raytheon's SDB-II business development leader. “We envision a healthy international market.”

The company's confidence is based on both comparative affordability – one source has quoted $115,000 per missile – and the wide range of platforms that can potentially carry it. That list begins with the F-15E, for which the Lot 1 delivery is destined, but integration on the F-35 is helping broaden integration options....

...“We're on the F-35B and C (as part of software) Block 4.2, which will reach IOC in 2022,” says Jim Sweetman, SDB-II program director. “Because of the F-35 schedule, we're also working with the U.S. Navy to integrate on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This is purely driven from a Navy perspective to get a launch platform sooner than 2022.”...

...Raytheon has also developed a software technology, called Interface Bridge, which enables SDB-II carriage on aircraft with the 1760 interface. This opens up the possibilities to integrate on F-16s, among other platforms.

“There are 13 JSF countries, four countries fly F-15E-equivalent airplanes, and we have all these F-16s around the planet,” White says. “So we've got the F-16s and we've got the Typhoons. We want to try to give our European NATO allies the same adverse-weather capability that the U.S. would have.”

Source: http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... ge-gap-jsf

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2015, 15:09
by zerion
Raytheon Considers Powered SDB for UK F-35s

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /71257746/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2015, 16:58
by sprstdlyscottsmn
And here I thought that a powered SDB is all that Spear was.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2015, 17:02
by neptune
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And here I thought that a powered SDB is all that Spear was.


...great minds think alike.....:)

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2015, 14:03
by spazsinbad
Raytheon Wins Small Contract For Huge Program: SDB II; Exports By 2018
19 Jun 2015 Colin Clark

"...Two things mark the SDB II as a particularly lethal weapon. It can fly 40 miles to its target. And it possesses a tri-mode seeker that — because its various sensors share and fuse data as they approach the target is effective on both stationary and moving targets — humans and vehicles (including armored) and buildings. My understanding is that it uses an uncooled tri-mode seeker with semiactive laser (SAL), uncooled imaging infrared and millimeter wave guidance. It can also use GPS.

How big might this program get? Just for the United States it could hit $5 billion. Add in all those allies and partners and you are looking at one huge market over time.

Here are the details on what the low rate contract [$31 million] buys in addition to the bombs themselves: 156 SDB II single weapon containers, eight SDB II weapon load crew trainers and conventional munitions maintenance trainers, four SDB II Lot 1 practical explosive ordnance disposal system trainers, and data.”"

PHOTO: http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/u ... Bomb-2.jpg

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/rayt ... gram-sdb2/


Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2015, 10:41
by popcorn
....

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2016, 17:12
by spazsinbad
FARNBOROUGH: Raytheon and USAF begin SDB II tri-mode seeker flight tests
11 Jul 2016 Leigh Giangreco

"Raytheon and the US Air Force have started flight testing of the Small Diameter Bomb II’s coordinated attack capability, which uses GPS and anti-jamming to attack static targets from at least 40 miles away.

Recent flight tests also employed the SDB II’s normal attack capability, which fires on fixed and moving targets using infrared imaging and millimetre-wave seeker modes, according to Raytheon.

“Most people would look at SDB II and say technologically, the most complicated subsystem to address from a design [and] development perspective is the tri-mode seeker,” Mike Jarrett, vice-president of air warfare systems for Raytheon said at the Farnborough air show on 11 July. “We have fully qualified that seeker and we’ve demonstrated it in multiple flight tests in all the modes of operation quite successfully.”

Raytheon has also corrected a cabling issue with SDB II, after the bomb failed to detonate in a live fire testing event last September. The programme is moving ahead and should achieve initial operational capability by 2018, Jarrett says.

“In a live fire test, you go through the forensic evidence, which the ordnance folks are very good in the development programme about retrieving hardware from a flight test,” Jarrett says. “[They] made a conclusion on the most likely cause and we’re moving on.”

Raytheon also completed design verification tests for its corrosive environment correction on the weapon. The company must still wait for a formal qualification, which will determine the lot 2 contract award. Raytheon expects to complete qualification within the third quarter of the calendar year, Jarrett says.

The SDB II will be fielded on the Lockheed Martin F-35's B and C variants, and weapon integration also will be completed on the US Air Force’s Boeing F-15E. The bomb could potentially later be fielded on the Boeing F/A-18, Lockheed AC-130, F-16, F-22 and F-35A, the Fairchild Republic A-10 and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' MQ-9.

The standoff-range weapon persists through bad weather, which Raytheon has touted as an advantage over laser guidance systems, which can be degraded by fog and other adverse conditions. The bomb is also designed to identify and prosecute mobile targets in a shorter time.

Schedule delays have plagued the SDB II, including a shift in the required assets available (RAA) schedule that pushed back initial operational capability. Raytheon’s RAA date moved from March 2018 to July 2018 to allow for the live fire failure investigation and give more time for additional developing testing, a March selected acquisition report from the Department of Defense."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-427228/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2016, 00:36
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:
FARNBOROUGH: Raytheon and USAF begin SDB II tri-mode seeker flight tests
11 Jul 2016 Leigh Giangreco

"Raytheon and the US Air Force have started flight testing of the Small Diameter Bomb II’s coordinated attack capability, which uses GPS and anti-jamming to attack static targets from at least 40 miles away.

2 flight tests also employed the SDB II’s normal attack capability, which fires on fixed and moving targets using infrared imaging and millimetre-wave seeker modes, according to Raytheon.

“Most people would look at SDB II and say technologically, the most complicated subsystem to address from a design [and] development perspective is the tri-mode seeker,” Mike Jarrett, vice-president of air warfare systems for Raytheon said at the Farnborough air show on 11 July. “We have fully qualified that seeker and we’ve demonstrated it in multiple flight tests in all the modes of operation quite successfully.”

Raytheon has also corrected a cabling issue with SDB II, after the bomb failed to detonate in a live fire testing event last September. The programme is moving ahead and should achieve initial operational capability by 2018, Jarrett says.

“In a live fire test, you go through the forensic evidence, which the ordnance folks are very good in the development programme about retrieving hardware from a flight test,” Jarrett says. “[They] made a conclusion on the most likely cause and we’re moving on.”

Raytheon also completed design verification tests for its corrosive environment correction on the weapon. The company must still wait for a formal qualification, which will determine the lot 2 contract award. Raytheon expects to complete qualification within the third quarter of the calendar year, Jarrett says.

The SDB II will be fielded on the Lockheed Martin F-35's B and C variants, and weapon integration also will be completed on the US Air Force’s Boeing F-15E. The bomb could potentially later be fielded on the Boeing F/A-18, Lockheed AC-130, F-16, F-22 and F-35A, the Fairchild Republic A-10 and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems' MQ-9.

The standoff-range weapon persists through bad weather, which Raytheon has touted as an advantage over laser guidance systems, which can be degraded by fog and other adverse conditions. The bomb is also designed to identify and prosecute mobile targets in a shorter time.

Schedule delays have plagued the SDB II, including a shift in the required assets available (RAA) schedule that pushed back initial operational capability. Raytheon’s RAA date moved from March 2018 to July 2018 to allow for the live fire failure investigation and give more time for additional developing testing, a March selected acquisition report from the Department of Defense."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... de-427228/


This should read Coordinate Attack Capability ie. utilizes GPS coordinates. No intelligent swarming...yet. :D

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2016, 17:20
by spazsinbad
Marine Corps Aviation Chief Ranks SDB II as F-35 Upgrade Priority
14 Jul 2016 Valerie Insinna

"FARNBOROUGH, England — The US Defense Department is hammering out the final details of its Block 4 upgrade plan for the F-35 joint strike fighter, but the Marine Corps has made clear that Raytheon’s Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) is at the top of its wish list.

Asked by journalists at the Royal International Air Tattoo what he’d most like to see in the modernization program, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for aviation, characterized the SDB II as the most critical system.

“That's a fantastic weapon,” he said July 8. “I want to get it on there and really increase the capability of the airplane."

Days later at Farnborough International Airshow, Davis’ executive assistant, Col. William Lieblein, reiterated the service's desire for the SDB II. The service also wants to incorporate full-motion video onboard the F-35 and improve the electro-optical targeting system with forward-looking infrared, he said.

The F-35 will be initially equipped with the first iteration of the weapon, but the follow-on version includes a tri-mode seeker that uses infrared, millimeter wave and laser guidance to identify and destroy targets.

Raytheon and the Air Force recently started up a new round of SDB II flight tests of the weapon’s coordinate attack and laser modes, the company announced Monday. When coordinate attack mode is engaged, the SDB II’s GPS system will direct it to fixed targets at distances of more than 40 miles, while the latter mode uses a semi-active laser to illuminate targets...." [then stuff about the BLOCK 4 upgrades with all weapons in first two blocks will be posted elsewhere here]

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27390&p=347392&hilit=Insinna#p347392 [BLOCK 4 UPGRADE INFO]

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /87070442/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2016, 04:31
by popcorn
Re my previous post, I may have spoken too soon. It would seem that SDB (I or II or both maybe?) have the ability to talk to each other.

Add edit: or I could be wrong and "could allow" is not a confirmation of capability but rather a sttement of potential inherent with the advanced tech. If the former, then probably limited to SDB-2 due to presence of a 2-way data link.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... ategy.aspx


State of AF: Modernizing for next offset strategy

...
Lastly, network-enabled semi-autonomous technology, found in weapons like the small diameter bomb, could allow weapons to talk and share data with each other.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 13:33
by mixelflick
Do I read this correctly... SDB II will not be incorporated into the F-35A? "The SDB II will be integrated on the F-35 B and C" (paraphrasing).

If so, that seems strange..

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 14:26
by Dragon029
mixelflick wrote:Do I read this correctly... SDB II will not be incorporated into the F-35A? "The SDB II will be integrated on the F-35 B and C" (paraphrasing).

If so, that seems strange..


The F-35A is definitely getting the SDB II.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 14:47
by durahawk
Dragon029 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Do I read this correctly... SDB II will not be incorporated into the F-35A? "The SDB II will be integrated on the F-35 B and C" (paraphrasing).

If so, that seems strange..


The F-35A is definitely getting the SDB II.


I think the approach all around is to implement it first on the Strike Eagle and F-18E/F, perhaps the thinking is that during the initial years the inventory of the munition will be so low anyway that it makes more sense to focus on the other priorities for the F-35. In any case, it appears to not be as much of a priority for the USAF so they are letting the Marines take the lead with integration and reaping the benefits afterwards.

I have to admit though, I find the USAF's Laissez-faire approach to implementing the weapon to be puzzling given it would seem that the SDB-II is a weapon ready made for the limited space of the F-35's internal bays. I would think having an expanded magazine to prosecute moving targets in denied environments would be something the brass would want to pursue more aggressively in the development timeline.

The SASC briefly addressed the SDB II integration timeline for the F-35 (with regards to the retirement of the A-10 of course, as Senator Kelly Ayotte was asking the question) this April. The response was that it is an Early Block 4 capability in the 2022 timeframe. (Around the 1hr 02 min mark)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?408688-1/ ... er-program

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 16:05
by Dragon029
As I understand it, all three variants are getting the SDB II at the same time as part of Block 4.1. Given that the F-35A bay is essentially identical to the C variant's, I don't see integration with the A variant being something that would be deferred, especially given it's user-base size.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 18:14
by SpudmanWP
Keep in mind that post Block 4.x, weapon integration will be much easier, faster, and cheaper on the F-35 thanks to UAI.

Because of this, you will see weapons get "integrated" whenever they are ready and not part of a Block, as long as that weapon has UAI "drivers" IIRC SDB2 will have "drivers" by then and it will integrate via UAI and not the traditional "hardcoded" manner.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 00:15
by spazsinbad
"A model of the small diameter bomb II in the F-35 weapons bay. (Yasmin Tadjdeh) http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... _9027.ashx

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 00:47
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:
"A model of the small diameter bomb II in the F-35 weapons bay. (Yasmin Tadjdeh) http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... _9027.ashx

Something looks really wrong with that. Like the edges of the bay and door don't even remotely line up. Am I seeing that right, or is there some kind of optical illusion tricking my eyes?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 01:17
by spazsinbad
There is a ZOOM Lens effect so that the foreground appears larger than background (inside the bay).

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 03:06
by Dragon029
count_to_10 wrote:Am I seeing that right, or is there some kind of optical illusion tricking my eyes?

I think they'd be happy to know they confused you:

Image

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 16:38
by count_to_10
Dragon029 wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Am I seeing that right, or is there some kind of optical illusion tricking my eyes?

I think they'd be happy to know they confused you:

Image

Well, no wonder. Besides the mixture of 2D and 3D objects there, it looks like one of the bay doors is just flat out missing.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2017, 18:48
by smsgtmac
count_to_10 wrote:Well, no wonder. Besides the mixture of 2D and 3D objects there, it looks like one of the bay doors is just flat out missing.

Yep. Outer bay door is omitted, while the flipper door is rendered in 2D.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2017, 03:47
by neptune
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1369657/

Contracts
Press Operations
Release No: CR-218-17
Nov. 9, 2017

Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $34,622,661 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for weapons capabilities technology maturation and risk reduction pre-engineering, manufacturing and development activities for dual-capability F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft and small-diameter bomb 2 (SDB-II) in support of the Marine Corps and Air Force.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in July 2018.

Fiscal 2017 research, development, test and evaluation ( Marine Corps and Air Force) funds in the amount of $6,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-18-C-1004).
:)

....that Marine Corps "thingee", would that include both the "Bee" and "Sea"...me thinks, we'll see!
:wink:

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 03:41
by spazsinbad
FARNBOROUGH: Raytheon awaits F-35 decisions for StormBreaker integration
15 Jul 2018 Stephen Trimble

"Raytheon comes to Farnborough hunting for new export orders for the StormBreaker bomb, but the timing of deliveries will depend on pending decisions by the US government on weapons integration upgrades for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter. The F-35 programme is still reshuffling a package of upgrades planned for the continuous capability, development and demonstration (C2D2) phase, which was formerly known as Block 4 follow-on modernisation.

Integrating the StormBreaker — GBU-53/B small diameter bomb II — is still included in the C2D2 integration, but the “dust hasn’t settled yet on exactly” when, Raytheon officials say.

In the queue are several F-35 operators planning to integrate the StormBreaker before clearing the aircraft for operational service. Last year, for example, the State Department approved a potential StormBreaker sale to Australia. Meanwhile, the USN has resequenced the timing of StormBreaker integration, moving the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ahead of the F-35C, Raytheon says....

...The 93kg (204lb) weapon is designed with the unique ability to hit a moving target in any weather. In clear weather, the StormBreaker can use an infrared camera or semi-active laser to continuing tracking a moving target. If the path to the target is obscured by weather, smoke or dust, the weapon can switch to a millimetre wave radar. All three sensors share a common radome, one of the most advanced components on the weapon...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... or-450206/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 04:52
by popcorn
...

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 05:40
by viper12
What's next ? Thanos ? :twisted:

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 15:21
by spazsinbad
:devil: NO Née. Not often does one see Née in an aviation story let alone da weapons one. For Fsake - ROFL. :doh:
Raytheon's StormBreaker Bomb Being Integrated into F/A-18
17 Jul 2018 Peter Dunai

"Raytheon's StormBreaker bomb, the U.S. Air Force’s newest weapon, has entered the operational testing phase (OTP). Raytheon, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and U.S. Navy have begun StormBreaker bomb integration activities on the F-35, F/A-18E/F, and F-15E, the company announced Monday....

...Née Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), StormBreaker, with its tri-mode seeker, is getting a step closer to providing USAF pilots a capability to strike maneuvering targets. Cristy Stagg, program director, told AIN that, because of one of its competitors, it recently changed the name of the weapon to StormBreaker….

...threshold platform, from international viewpoint the key could be the F-35A aircraft, he added."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rated-f-18

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2018, 22:13
by spazsinbad
US Fighters May Carry StormBreaker Foul-Weather Bomb by Next Year
18 Jul 2018 Oriana Pawlyk

"FARNBOROUGH, England -- Testing for Raytheon’s Stormbreaker precision-guided bomb, which can go after moving targets in bad weather, is "going so well" it may be fielded earlier than expected, according to company officials. The U.S. Air Force's System Programs Office "is looking at [the bomb and saying], 'This is going so well' that they're pulling the timeline left because they want to potentially field it early," said Jim Meger [former 9th Air Expeditionary Task Force vice commander] of Raytheon's Missile Systems business development....

..."No matter how challenging a scenario we've put into it, the weapon is performing just fantastic," Meger said. Meger said fielding to some aircraft may take place "right on the edge of 2018, 2019, is kind of where [officials] are looking."...

...the F-35 is not expected to carry it until roughly 2022, officials said. The Air Force, which classifies the bomb as the GBU-53, is the lead service on the program. "We're working as hard as we can to pull that [fielding] to the left," Meger said.

Raytheon officials this week announced that StormBreaker has entered operational testing. "And we've taken eight operational test shots," Meger said, adding the most recent test occurred last week. Meger said the bomb's success rate was 90 percent during developmental testing....

...An F-35 can carry 24 total StormBreaker bombs, eight internally and 16 externally. The bombs were previously known as small diameter bomb, or SDB, IIs. "Imagine....they have to defend against swarming boats. You can start sending a whole bunch of the SDB IIs out to go find those boats as you're providing information to them, data linking to them," he said.

The StormBreaker's predecessor, Boeing-made GBU-39 SDB I, uses similar precision-guided technology, but lacks the advanced moving-target seeking equipment. The GBU-39 is used as a low collateral-damage weapon, often in urban environments. With StormBreaker, "you can tell it, 'I'm looking for a tracked vehicle.' And it will classify the different targets for you ... and goes, 'That's what you're looking for,'' Merger said. "That's a huge quantum capability leap."

Source: https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... -year.html

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2018, 23:19
by count_to_10
I want to see one fitted with a booster and launched out of a VLS.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2018, 23:43
by SpudmanWP
Given that there is already a Ground Launched SDB1 (on top of an MLRS rocket), SDB2 should be a no-brainer.

Image

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2018, 19:31
by squirrelshoes
count_to_10 wrote:I want to see one fitted with a booster and launched out of a VLS.

I wonder how the circumference compares to ESSM, since having four of them per VLS tube would be a lot more reasonable tradeoff in space for capability.

Far more expensive than the Hellfires they are scotch-taping onto LCS for anti-swarm boat but it would have long range precision strike capability as well, imagine spec ops contacting the destroyer over the horizon offshore to have an urban bunker taken out with low risk of collateral damage.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 05:02
by count_to_10
squirrelshoes wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I want to see one fitted with a booster and launched out of a VLS.

I wonder how the circumference compares to ESSM, since having four of them per VLS tube would be a lot more reasonable tradeoff in space for capability.

Far more expensive than the Hellfires they are scotch-taping onto LCS for anti-swarm boat but it would have long range precision strike capability as well, imagine spec ops contacting the destroyer over the horizon offshore to have an urban bunker taken out with low risk of collateral damage.

ESSM is apparently 10” in diameter, the SDB is nominally 7”. So, probably.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 05:40
by popcorn
according to this link, LSDB diameter is 9.5 inches

https://saab.com/land/weapon-systems/su ... eter-bomb/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 16:26
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:according to this link, LSDB diameter is 9.5 inches

https://saab.com/land/weapon-systems/su ... eter-bomb/

Hmmm. The diameter of the cylindrical body is supposed to be 7”, so maybe the folded wing assembly adds the other 2.5”.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 16:53
by elvis1
Oh the perils of measuring the diameter of stuff that isn't round. :?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2018, 23:09
by spazsinbad
Operational Testing Underway for StormBreaker, Formerly Known as SDBII
20 Jul 2018 Amy McCullough

"...“Operational test is planned for 12 months. However, there is an effort to accelerate the program,” she told Air Force Magazine via email. “Some F-35 early integration work has begun.”...

...“Raytheon expects follow-on contracts to support F-35B integration as part of the C2D2 program later this year,” said Stagg. “We are on contract, and in the early stages of F/A-18E/F integration for the USN.”

Raytheon recently touted the weapon at the Farnborough International Air Show in England, saying its goal was to emphasize the weapon’s “game-changing capability.” She said international companies, especially those buying the F-35, continue to express interest in the weapon. StormBreaker was designed to fit in the internal bay of the F-35, she noted.

As for the name change, Stagg said it “better characterizes the weapons ability to identify and destroy targets in adverse weather or atmospheric conditions using a tri-mode seeker. ‘Storm’ can also mean an onslaught of incoming threats,” and the weapon is capable of defending against such threats by breaking “through storms with agile precision to destroy its target.”"

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... SDBII.aspx

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2018, 23:40
by elvis1
Will really be cool when a single Meteor / AIM-120D can be replaced by 2 SACM.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2018, 04:41
by Corsair1963
lrrpf52 wrote:The SDB really changes things in several ways.

Even when configured for VLO penetration, it offers a very mixed internal stores arrangement that will bring flexibility to a single sortie.


F-35A Coalition Sample
Station 4: 4 x SDB
Station 5: AIM-120D
Station 7: AIM-120D
Station 8: 1 x 2000lb ASM (GBU-31 JDAM, GBU-32, JSOW)

F-35B UK Coalition Sample
Station 4: 1 x Paveway IV
Station 5: Meteor
Station 7: Meteor
Station 8: 4 x SDB

The persistence, weapons mix, sensor fusion, network-linking, and ability to do different roles on a whim is going to be scary, especially since you can coordinate fuel status with each other and work that into coverage where work needs to be done.

I'm seeing all the internal pubs and concepts from the 1980s come to fruition in exquisite detail.



Yes, many think of weapons loads as always being of equal types. Like two Amraams and two JDAM's. Yet, depending on the mission profile that could vary considerably. This could also vary between aircraft in one squadron during a mission. Not like they all have to fly with the same specific weapons load!

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 14:03
by forbin
GBU-53 for what block 4 or 5 and what variants please ?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 15:40
by SpudmanWP
GBU-53 is slated for Block 4.1 via UAI.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 09:59
by forbin
SpudmanWP wrote:GBU-53 is slated for Block 4.1 via UAI.

Good thanks but the F-35B with its truncated weapons bays have some problems and 3 or 4 in each ?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 10:20
by spazsinbad
Three years ago LtGen. Bogdan said this: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=28254&p=307597&hilit=redesign+Bogdan+weapon#p307597
"...“If the weapons bay has to be redesigned to accommodate [new] weapons, we’ll only be redesigning it one time,” Bogdan told reporters after the Norwegian F-35 rollout ceremony in Texas last month.

“We intend on only redesigning the weapons bay one time, so we’re looking at all the weapons together, to figure out what the weapons bay has to look like to put any or all of the weapons on there so you only have to do it once.”..."

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 12:49
by Dragon029
It should carry 4 in each bay (8 total):

http://www.tampabaydefensealliance.com/ ... is-updated

The internal weapons bay of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter cannot fit the required Small Diameter Bomb II weapons load, and a hydraulic line and structural bracket must be redesigned and modified ahead of the planned Block 4 release in fiscal year 2022, the joint program office confirmed this week.

The Air Force and Raytheon plan to begin scaling up production of the 250-pound class, precision-attack munition, except the current F-35B internal weapons bay cannot fit four of the eight required SDB IIs in its current configuration.


Image

In other words, they fit, but there's a hydraulic line and a bracket that need to be slightly shifted / redesigned for proper safer clearance.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 16:00
by lamoey
If there are 4 SDB's in the bay, are there room for the AIM-120 as well? Does not look like that from the picture, but I could be wrong.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 16:04
by steve2267
lamoey wrote:If there are 4 SDB's in the bay, are there room for the AIM-120 as well? Does not look like that from the picture, but I could be wrong.


As the inner bay rotates closed, I believe the AIM-120 mounted on that inner bay door will end up basically just above the head or through the head of the crewman in the above photo (the helmet with "ORD" on its rear face).

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 16:36
by SpudmanWP
lamoey wrote:If there are 4 SDB's in the bay, are there room for the AIM-120 as well? Does not look like that from the picture, but I could be wrong.


Yes

Image

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 22:31
by lamoey
I stand corrected. Good!

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 04:31
by squirrelshoes
Curious = is there any kind of known plan or timeline for adding those 4xSDB pylon racks for F-35?

I guess 8xinternal along with 4 500lbs on the wing is still a significant CAS loadout, but I'm thinking for something like an anti-armor role you'd want as many SDBs as you could get off the ground with.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2018, 08:17
by SpudmanWP
SDB2 is part of Block 4/UAI so the capability will be added anytime after Block 4.1 if it's not included.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 03:47
by Dragon029
I think he's talking about having external racks of SDBs.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 11:55
by weasel1962
GBU-53, now known as stormbreaker (formerly SDB II) quietly got its lot 5 order in Dec 2018 for US$141m or ~US$112k each. The deal for 1,260 splits between 750 for USN and 510 for USAF. This brings total orders to 2,532.

https://thedefensepost.com/2018/12/19/r ... 1-million/

This contrasts with GBU-39 whose orders had reached 7,000 with 1260 BRU-61 racks by lot 5 and was generating 2,000+ production numbers per lot from lot 6. However, GBU-39 is significantly cheaper due to its static JDAM like capability that do not by itself have moving targets capability (Boeing is adding a laser seeker to make it a laser SDB). GBU-53 is more expensive due to the a different and more sophisticated seeker and can handle moving targets. The original program acquisition was 12,000 for USAF and 5,000 for USN/USMC.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 17:44
by SpudmanWP
Not to be a stickler for details, but "is adding" sounds like a future (ie not yet done) feature.

The Laser-SDB was declared IOC in 2014.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 01:00
by weasel1962
Yet another reason why I think low cost weaponry used wisely trumps low numbers of high costs PGMs.

Yesterday PGMs, today Golden Horde swarms.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... orde-swarm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This as Janes reports the Stormbreaker will IOC with the F-15E later this year.
https://www.janes.com/article/89419/sto ... -this-year

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 01:51
by SpudmanWP
Can't wait till APKWS & LZunit become more the norm.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 02:48
by marauder2048
SDB II is nearly $200k a pop. That's not low cost and nearly MALD "classic" cost.

I gather than something that sits in-between SDB II and MALD-N was
Gray Wolf's goal with a particular emphasis on driving down the cost of miniature turbojets
based on the OTA they had with TDI for Gray Wolf.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 03:18
by weasel1962
$200k was lot 3 SDB II costs (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1062990/)

lot 4 dropped to $135k a pop (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1452468/)
lot 5 dropped further to $112k a pop (https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1717218/) which already achieves the targeted cost goal of below $115k.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 03:33
by optimist
Have you seen this one?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 03:43
by SpudmanWP
LSDB should be relatively inexpensive too.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 04:17
by weasel1962
Boeing has done a great job keeping SDB I in the fight. The last GBU-39 oontract including 39B was $33k a pop. Even budgeting is at $38k a pop (SDB II budget is between $139-$158k a pop).

That's why the FY 2020 budget is still 7000+ SDB I with 1000+ SDB II in terms of acquisition numbers.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 04:40
by marauder2048
Gross/Weapon System Unit cost for SDB II was $198k last year. It's $180k this year.

That's not cheap.

GBU-39 purchases are mainly to restore the burn down experienced by US and allied usage;
if Boeing had any interest in keeping GBU-39 in the high-end fight you would have seen
datalink, turbojet retrofits and non-LJDAM seeker options by now.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 04:47
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Gross/Weapon System Unit cost for SDB II was $198k last year. It's $180k this year.

That's not cheap.

GBU-39 purchases are mainly to restore the burn down experienced by US and allied usage;
if Boeing had any interest in keeping GBU-39 in the high-end fight you would have seen
datalink, turbojet retrofits and non-LJDAM seeker options by now.


Numbers quoted are based on budget. That's higher than actual cost which is what is actually contracted with the supplier. The contract announcements and values are already provided earlier.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 05:07
by marauder2048
The gross weapons system unit costs are definitive since the individual contracts on defense.gov
don't aren't necessarily include long-lead, support or contracts valued under $7 million.

If the actual contracted price is different you'll see that credit being reprogrammed.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 05:13
by weasel1962
Bear in mind that the USAF could have chosen the SDB II, rather than SDB I, to replace those "burn down" usage. The point is the costs goes up the more gadgets that's put on the bomb. Put a turbojet, the costs up by a few hundred $ more.

They did compete with a Harris datalink which was the GBU-40. Since Boeing lost, the USAF is not going to buy that. That's a moot point. The only way they can now compete is to keep SDB I going. The laser seeker addition was imho a smart move.

On gross weapon cost, one can add the incremental for a more complete pic but at flyaway cost, budget is not equal to actual.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 06:19
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Bear in mind that the USAF could have chosen the SDB II, rather than SDB I, to replace those "burn down" usage.


Given that Raytheon can't produce SDB II (it's in LRIP) at a rate that would replenish peacetime and war reserve
stocks and that you can't use OCO money for GBU-39 for GBU-53...

weasel1962 wrote:The point is the costs goes up the more gadgets that's put on the bomb.


Which would have to be the case for SDB I since you can't "Golden Horde" network without a datalink.

weasel1962 wrote:On gross weapon cost, one can add the incremental for a more complete pic but at flyaway cost, budget is not equal to actual.


It's the only apples-to-apples cost comparison that's available.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 06:44
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Which would have to be the case for SDB I since you can't "Golden Horde" network without a datalink.


I suspect they can since Genatempo was talking about it.
http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2 ... tacks.aspx

Rather than seek out another cruise missile, Golden Horde would enable assets like the Small Diameter Bombs I and II, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy to plan their next steps together once fired.


The only way I can think of is using the GPS receiver to receive mid-course updates.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 07:45
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:The only way they can now compete is to keep SDB I going. The laser seeker addition was imho a smart move.


Missed this gem.

The manner in which they integrated the seeker changed the aero properties sufficiently to necessitate
a new stores separation campaign on every platform. Which is why you only really see it on turboprops.

And this kept it from being the go-to for the F-35's high-speed moving target weapon.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 08:05
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:I suspect they can since Genatempo was talking about it.
http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2 ... tacks.aspx

Rather than seek out another cruise missile, Golden Horde would enable assets like the Small Diameter Bombs I and II, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy to plan their next steps together once fired.



Did he actually say that?

weasel1962 wrote:The only way I can think of is using the GPS receiver to receive mid-course updates.


Which leaves the host aircraft completely in the dark about your munitions plans; the power required to transmit
back is well beyond what SDB can do onboard.

One-way is clearly not what they want or even what they have:

But what if the weapons could think through those steps on their own and send feedback to other munitions and airmen?

“The first two of us that got here four minutes earlier, we actually took out this target,” Genatempo said, describing how weapons could chart out attacks. “So the two of you that were coming in behind us just to make sure, you can go to Target B. Within that four-minute flight time, there would be time to adjust to go to Target B.”

AFRL, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and weapons manufacturers are collaborating to create such a network, but Genatempo said he hasn’t taken the step of offering a company a contract to install it.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 08:43
by popcorn
I recall rrading an article last year on swarm logic and mention was made.of SDB-2 as possibly having such capability down the road.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 08:46
by weasel1962
Yet the USAF picked the dual shot LSDB for the MQ-9 before the SDB II...

Don't think the LSDB is perfect, it can't do zero-visibility but its certainly a scale up from the GBU-39A. My understanding is the USAF has been using the LSDB with the sniper pod and that's been positive feedback thus far.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 08:49
by weasel1962
marauder2048 wrote:Which leaves the host aircraft completely in the dark about your munitions plans; the power required to transmit
back is well beyond what SDB can do onboard.

One-way is clearly not what they want or even what they have:

But what if the weapons could think through those steps on their own and send feedback to other munitions and airmen?

“The first two of us that got here four minutes earlier, we actually took out this target,” Genatempo said, describing how weapons could chart out attacks. “So the two of you that were coming in behind us just to make sure, you can go to Target B. Within that four-minute flight time, there would be time to adjust to go to Target B.”

AFRL, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and weapons manufacturers are collaborating to create such a network, but Genatempo said he hasn’t taken the step of offering a company a contract to install it.


That's one of the things I was thinking. If the first ones hit, its just a simple strategy to revise the target cords for the follow up. That's something I think even the GPS SDB can achieve.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 23:05
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Yet the USAF picked the dual shot LSDB for the MQ-9 before the SDB II...


You mean they selected LSDB over a weapon that hadn't (and hasn't) even IOC'ed? Shock.
Sacrificing a volume market like F-35 for the MQ-9/AC-130 niche market is silly in any event.

weasel1962 wrote:Don't think the LSDB is perfect, it can't do zero-visibility but its certainly a scale up from the GBU-39A. My understanding is the USAF has been using the LSDB with the sniper pod and that's been positive feedback thus far.


Why is the pod relevant? LSDB isn't dependent on lead-laser.
And it's practically an AFSOC exclusive weapon so unless there's buddy-lasing going on this isn't fast jet usage.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 23:18
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:
That's one of the things I was thinking. If the first ones hit, its just a simple strategy to revise the target cords for the follow up. That's something I think even the GPS SDB can achieve.



Provided you ignore the whole communicating back to airmen thing i.e. battle damage assessment and weapons status.
"four minutes earlier" at typical sub-sonic munitions speed is ~40 miles.
That's likely still going to require more power than SDB I can handle.

And quite how a weapon like SDB I without a seeker does hit assessment in the GPS denied
environment envisioned is mysterious.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 05:14
by kimjongnumbaun
marauder2048 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:
That's one of the things I was thinking. If the first ones hit, its just a simple strategy to revise the target cords for the follow up. That's something I think even the GPS SDB can achieve.



Provided you ignore the whole communicating back to airmen thing i.e. battle damage assessment and weapons status.
"four minutes earlier" at typical sub-sonic munitions speed is ~40 miles.
That's likely still going to require more power than SDB I can handle.

And quite how a weapon like SDB I without a seeker does hit assessment in the GPS denied
environment envisioned is mysterious.


The plane and the SBD both have INS. I'm guessing the CEP for INS is classified, but I know it's good enough to kill whatever you're shooting at.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 07:30
by gc
Nope. I can tell you for sure that the drift of INS without GPS updated is significant. With the SDB warhead size, a kill is not possible without a terminal seeker.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 08:41
by kimjongnumbaun
gc wrote:Nope. I can tell you for sure that the drift of INS without GPS updated is significant. With the SDB warhead size, a kill is not possible without a terminal seeker.


Point or area target? The SBD warhead and blast radius is enough to take out any area target with INS, unless we are talking dismounteds.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 09:44
by SpudmanWP
Drift all depends on range, speed, and altitude when dropped.

CEP from 40k @ m.06 and 40+nmi away is a hell of a lot different than 1 mile @ 10k.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 09:55
by weasel1962
Even Jdams are getting <6m for ce50 performance in ins only mode in terms of horizontal target accuracy.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 18:01
by kimjongnumbaun
SpudmanWP wrote:Drift all depends on range, speed, and altitude when dropped.

CEP from 40k @ m.06 and 40+nmi away is a hell of a lot different than 1 mile @ 10k.


The CEP doesn’t change based on distance. As long as INS is working, the guaranteed CEP is what it is. Every time I’ve seen it deliver higher accuracy in a war zone than the brochure number.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2019, 21:01
by SpudmanWP
CEP depends on the range as the INS is not perfect. If the INS were perfect, you would not need GPS.

If GPS data is denied, the JDAM will achieve a 30-meter CEP or less for free flight times up to 100 seconds with a GPS quality handoff from the aircraft.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... bu-313238/

A JDAM dropped within 5 miles of a target that is on a ballistic path only specs a 30 meter CEP for 100 seconds, basically 1.5 minutes. A gliding SDB that is dropped from 40+ miles away will not maintain it's GPS-Denied CEP for the entire flight. That flight time can be over 4.5 minutes. Using a conservative .03 CEP per second of flight and not even including the increased INS errors introduced in a gliding flight model, a 4.5 minute flight-time CEP in a GPS-Denied environment would be at least 80 meters.

https://sldinfo.com/2010/03/weapons-dev ... i-block-9/

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 03:42
by weasel1962
Difference between specs and actual.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 04:43
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 05:03
by kimjongnumbaun
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 05:40
by SpudmanWP
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2019, 23:03
by wrightwing
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2019, 01:19
by weasel1962
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2019, 03:57
by wrightwing
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2019, 19:54
by marauder2048
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 02:22
by spazsinbad
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

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 09:45
by weasel1962
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2019, 00:55
by marauder2048
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 00:08
by marauder2048
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 10:38
by ricnunes
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2019, 17:18
by SpudmanWP
SDB1 is Boeing while SDB2 is Raytheon.

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

vzlBOpJ[1].png

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2019, 13:36
by squirrelshoes
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.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2019, 01:03
by SpudmanWP
Just for Reference..

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2019, 21:11
by fidgetspinner
These attachments are really great :P

Is there any information as to what the max loadout for the internal and external carry of the F-35 would be for just having JDAM-ERs? Just curious as to what mission requirements the F-35 can achieve against SAM systems

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 00:04
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
It would be gut wrenching from an economics perspective firing expensive SAMs at gliding JDAMs.


Why would you need expensive SAMs to defeat unpowered glide munitions?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 03:18
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Just for Reference..


What's the latest on winged/powered JDAMs? Do you know if there are any plans to procure?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 03:55
by SpudmanWP
Nothing in the US budget as far as I know.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 03:58
by weasel1962
At least to the Australians since production started in 2015.
https://twitter.com/boeingdefense/statu ... 0364552192

The wingkit (designated as BSU-104) is also acquired by USAF for the quickstrike aerial mine program.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 05:03
by marauder2048
The Navy also has an unfunded priorities request for Quickstrike-ER.

Which means the Navy will be purchasing two different wingkits (ALA for HAAWC)
for air-to-subsurface weapons though ALA is (notionally) supposed to have a datalink.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 05:36
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:Why would you need expensive SAMs to defeat unpowered glide munitions?

SAMs are usually expensive, and they are launched at incoming flying munitions.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 06:41
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Why would you need expensive SAMs to defeat unpowered glide munitions?

SAMs are usually expensive, and they are launched at incoming flying munitions.


Welcome to begging the question.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 07:35
by squirrelshoes
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at here, or better said I don't know why you're confused as to why an expensive SAM would be launched at an incoming glide weapon.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 09:45
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:I guess I don't understand what you're getting at here, or better said I don't know why you're confused as to why an expensive SAM would be launched at an incoming glide weapon.


An opponent capable of readily detecting and engaging glide weapons is likely to have a firing doctrine
and an interceptor inventory that doesn't result in disproportionately expensive engagements.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 09:53
by weasel1962
Iron dome, anyone?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 13:59
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:An opponent capable of readily detecting and engaging glide weapons is likely to have a firing doctrine and an interceptor inventory that doesn't result in disproportionately expensive engagements.

Let's take Iran, for example. If Israel engaged in a strike against some important Iranian facility, say nine F-35s each putting 2 JDAM-ERs into the air from 40 miles away, what does Iran doctrine does Iran follow to engage them?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 16:25
by wrightwing
That's kind of the entire point of inexpensive glide weapons. The defender is going to be using a much more expensive weapon, to intercept the incoming weapons, lest they lose an even more expensive high value target (or the SAM battery, for that matter.) It's easier to saturate with inexpensive weapons.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 16:31
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:I guess I don't understand what you're getting at here, or better said I don't know why you're confused as to why an expensive SAM would be launched at an incoming glide weapon.


An opponent capable of readily detecting and engaging glide weapons is likely to have a firing doctrine
and an interceptor inventory that doesn't result in disproportionately expensive engagements.


TOR is designed to be as cheap as possible, and still get the job done. All the brains are on the chassis. IIRC the thing is command guided. Don't know if it makes the missiles cheaper than JDAMs though.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 16:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:TOR is designed to be as cheap as possible, and still get the job done. All the brains are on the chassis. IIRC the thing is command guided. Don't know if it makes the missiles cheaper than JDAMs though.

Command guided tells me that if the host radar is being jammed then it's targeting will be degraded. I also see that TOR has a total of 8 missiles per system. I single F-35 with SDBs/SPEAR3 can run a TOR empty. Not good odds when F-35s can be operating in flights of four tens of miles apart.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 18:53
by marauder2048
The discussion was about a "couple" JDAM-ERs against an opponent with a capability to
detect and intercept it with a SAM.

At the ranges indicated, it's at least a 10 minute time of flight for a weapon with:

1. no signature reduction
2. no datalink to be guided around popups
3. little maneuverability
4. fairly low velocity in the target area

JDAM-ER is much bigger electrically and physically than RAM targets but slower.

The price estimates I've seen for JDAM-ER are well about $50k.
That has to be weighed against RAM interceptors that are pretty close in cost and
the slow approach of JDAM-ER permits a shoot-look-shoot doctrine.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 19:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm just pointing out that only using a "couple of JDAM-ERs" to attack a SAM site is foolish when saturation options exist. I agree that .7-.8M glide bombs are not hard targets to hit.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 20:26
by swiss
So what would be the ideal weapon for the F-35, to eliminate a top notch sam system?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 20:33
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I'm just pointing out that only using a "couple of JDAM-ERs" to attack a SAM site is foolish when saturation options exist. I agree that .7-.8M glide bombs are not hard targets to hit.


First you have to knock down the S-300/400s.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 21:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
JASSM-ER

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 00:00
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:JASSM-ER


Why wouldn't TOR be able to handle that? (They defend S-300/400 sites.)

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 00:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
TOR was overwhelmed by SDB/SPEAR swarm. JASSM-ER is powered and stealthy. Take your pick. I have full confidence in the ability of an F-35 to get within SDB range of S300/S400/TOR without being fired upon.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 00:34
by weasel1962
Horizon limitations mean the S-series SAM radars, assuming no AEW, have difficulty detecting low flying aircraft. Even legacies flying nap should reach SDB launch range before detection.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:15
by element1loop
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:JASSM-ER


And probably several other cheaper standoff VLO weapons if supported with standoff Growler EA/ECM/ESM and/or a forward flight of F-35A in support of the weapon(s). If only to log techniques the S300/400 attempts to use, then negate them.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:24
by weasel1962
Israelis have another way of negating such SAMs. Cheap kamikaze drones.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:28
by marauder2048
If we are talking SEAD, AARGM-ER/SiAW.

My view is that the emphasis on C-UAS/C-RAM is going to make the low-slow
or glide bomb approaches vulnerable to cheap kills by the defense.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:34
by weasel1962
CRAM still has difficulties handling multiple vector saturation attacks. Even "low speed" glide bombs are still travelling at 150m/s which limits counter-saturation capabilities. Same goes with AA cluster warheads (which can't handle multiple vector). The key is just to increase the numbers of munitions per target.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:36
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Israelis have another way of negating such SAMs. Cheap kamikaze drones.


Hmm, or a 'loyal-wingman' fleet of small drones delivered by CBU with pre-launch targeting done by the host or a wingman's F-35 ISR and classifications. Then use F-35 flight EA to support their automated terminal phase. If the first fails to kill all then use the second CBU.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:41
by weasel1962
Can even be ground-launched kamikaze drones e.g. Harpy/Harop which have 500km range. Flyboys follow up in case the SAM radars get turned off.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:45
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Can even be ground-launched kamikaze drones e.g. Harpy/Harop which have 500km range. Flyboys follow up in case the SAM radars get turned off.


Yeah, I was thinking in terms of across the Air-Sea-Gap type scenario, delivered by air.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 02:53
by element1loop
weasel1962 wrote:Can even be ground-launched kamikaze drones e.g. Harpy/Harop which have 500km range. Flyboys follow up in case the SAM radars get turned off.


Come to think of it, I can't see why something like a dozen Harpy with datalinks can't be seeded by a standoff Reaper to provide the loiter station availability and range extensions, then the 6-hour 1,000 km endurance of a Harpy from launch point, provides time for F-35A to launch and get into place to support the terminal homing phase (plus support the datalink with target updates).

Then F-35A mops-up what remains with SDBII.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 05:10
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:CRAM still has difficulties handling multiple vector saturation attacks. Even "low speed" glide bombs are still travelling at 150m/s which limits counter-saturation capabilities. Same goes with AA cluster warheads (which can't handle multiple vector). The key is just to increase the numbers of munitions per target.


When you have multi-panel Ku-band FCR AESAs cheap enough to mount on light trucks and
active-seeker guided shells selling for $18k, saturation isn't what it used to be.

Slow, cheap drones need to spend time sniffing out LPI/LPD radars while avoiding destruction
or having their man-in-the-loop datalinks disrupted. And RAND was suggesting that their
small warheads could be defeated by kevlar blankets thrown over the targeted array.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 10:07
by weasel1962
Marauder, good points but if we're talking S-300/S-400 series radars, those aren't the low cost truck mounted AESA radars. Its going to be disruptive to SAM ops if one has to put a Kevlar blanket over a radar and then remove it when the need arises only to put it back when under threat again. And again, there's the flyboy backups that are going to send JDAMs to help warm those blankets.

If an entire SAM battalion can be eliminated, that's a few hundred million dollars. Well worth 100 SDB/JDAMs which costs $3-7 million, even if defences can shoot down 90.

Noted there was talk previously of making the MALD-J into an air-launched harpy equivalent. That's a decent 100lb payload that costs as low as a JDAM.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-p ... 1669729445

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 12:44
by hornetfinn
I think that JDAM-ER could be very interesting used in conjunction with other weapons like JASSM and AARGM-ER. AARGM would make using radars more difficult and dangerous. JASSM could target most difficult targets and JDAM-ER could be used to engage softer ones or they could mop up after AARGM and JASSM have done their part. Of course in many cases SDB would be better depending on target type due to smaller size and more numerous weapons with similar accuracy and good range. However JDAM-ER does give nice punch at long range and with rather low cost compared to JASSM or even JSOW. Longer range helps a lot with more freedoms in attack geometries etc. Of course going against high end air defences using only JDAM versions is not going to be easy. But naturally many targets are not protected by such systems at least not fully.

B-2 with JDAM-ER would be very interesting.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 13:59
by squirrelshoes
I'm fairly skeptical there would be some policy where two approaching missiles are deemed "easy to hit" thus ignored in favor of cheaper inexpensive weapons. The whole "rings of defense" thing, it would take an awful lot of faith in the inner ring to disregard something you think you can hit at long range in favor or point defense.

Is someone from Iran really going to look at incoming 40 miles away on radar and say "hah those are just glide bombs, hold your fire" or are they going to launch longer range SAMs hoping to have a better chance of destroying what threatens the high value target they are defending?

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2019, 14:03
by squirrelshoes
hornetfinn wrote:B-2 with JDAM-ER would be very interesting.

Indeed. A pair of B-2s could put 32 2,000lb JDAM-ERs in the air without being seen until dropped.

IMO most IADS would have to respond by desperately throwing everything they could into the air to counter, regardless of cost.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 03:22
by SpudmanWP
Get nasty and carry 26 JDAM-ERs and 8 MALD-Js to escort them on the way down. :mrgreen:

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 05:52
by Corsair1963
SDB-I

Small bombs deliver big capability


Bombing capacity of F-35As has quadrupled with the arrival of small diameter bombs introduced to No. 3 Squadron in June.

The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb, Increment 1 (SDB1), packs about 16kg of modern high explosive, guided by GPS-aided inertial navigation.

Wing Commander Simon Bird, Chief Engineer at Aerospace Explosive Ordnance Systems Program Office (AEOSPO) – Explosive Materiel Branch, said it was Air Force’s most advanced bomb and made best use of the F-35A's internal weapon bay.

“We’ve got a next-generation bomb to go with our fifth-generation fighter,” Wing Commander Bird said.

“Where you used to carry one JDAM [joint direct attack munition] in a position on the aircraft, SDB1 allows you to carry four bombs that each achieve very similar effects. Although at 285lbs the SDB1 is lighter than a 500lb JDAM, it’s highly accurate and packs a more powerful, modern explosive.

“SDB1 is also designed to penetrate harder targets, or can fuse above ground to create area effects.”


“We’ve got a next-generation bomb to go with our fifth-generation fighter.”

The bombs make use of ‘Diamondback’ wings, which deploy after release to provide greater stand-off range.

“With JDAMs you’ve got to be very close to the target to engage it, but because of the wings on SDB1, a single F-35A can engage up to eight separate targets from outside the range they can defend against,” Wing Commander Bird said.

“What’s more, because an SDB1 is carried internally, the F-35A can remain low observable and will not be affected by any extra drag from carrying eight bombs.”

Four bombs are fitted to new bomb release unit racks before loading on the aircraft.

“With an old JDAM, you had to take all the components and build it up, but that takes time, equipment and people,” Wing Commander Bird said.

“You can test the SDB1 without opening the box; you can test them before they’re even shipped to the base you’re going to operate from.

“This weapon comes fully assembled; you basically take it out of the box and load it.”

About 15 armament technicians from No. 3 Squadron received familiarisation training on the bombs before planned test firings in coming months.

AEOSPO’s engineering, logistic and technical staff ensured introduction of the weapons and their delivery was a milestone towards the F-35A’s initial operational capability in 2020.


https://news.defence.gov.au/capability/ ... capability

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 21:25
by marauder2048
weasel1962 wrote:Marauder, good points but if we're talking S-300/S-400 series radars, those aren't the low cost truck mounted AESA radars. Its going to be disruptive to SAM ops if one has to put a Kevlar blanket over a radar and then remove it when the need arises only to put it back when under threat again. And again, there's the flyboy backups that are going to send JDAMs to help warm those blankets.


And I was focusing on the terminal defenses that are expected to accompany them.

Given the short displacement times for even the larger FCRs, there's every possibility the radar is in motion
given the long time of flight of these glide weapons. For reference, the medium truck Q-53 needs two minutes
to displace so even doubling that there is decent margin.



weasel1962 wrote:Noted there was talk previously of making the MALD-J into an air-launched harpy equivalent. That's a decent 100lb payload that costs as low as a JDAM.
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-p ... 1669729445


Even MALD "classic" was well over $200,000.

The previous Raytheon presentation on the matter gives 40 pounds of payload (total) for the MALD truck version.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2019, 21:40
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:I'm fairly skeptical there would be some policy where two approaching missiles are deemed "easy to hit" thus ignored in favor of cheaper inexpensive weapons. The whole "rings of defense" thing, it would take an awful lot of faith in the inner ring to disregard something you think you can hit at long range in favor or point defense.


Who said anything about missiles? These are slow moving glide weapon and the defense is more likely to
be confident in their characterization of these weapons and the estimate of predicted impact points.

Cruise missile defense is different since you want to hit them as soon as possible while the missiles are
relatively fuel heavy and therefore less maneuverable and potentially less alert to hostile radars.

There's a preference to commit the cheaper interceptors first since the high-end interceptors tend to be (provided the targets are not within their range minima) capable of very late engagements if the earlier, cheaper stuff fails.

We are talking about a disciplined opponent who will be making every effort to solve the
hard (in the computational complexity sense) interceptor allocation problem.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 07:56
by nathan77
I'm even more sceptical that 'slow moving' glide bombs would be ignored by more expensive SAM batteries.
Afterall, there's no guarantee that point-defences can reliably mop them up (nothing is 100%). Especially when swarm tactics can be so easily employed by the attacker.

For example, there's this infamous video of a functioning & loaded Pantsir system failing to stop an Israeli attack:
https://youtu.be/NI0REqlYhmc

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 12:26
by element1loop
marauder2048 wrote:Cruise missile defense is different since you want to hit them as soon as possible while the missiles are relatively fuel heavy and therefore less maneuverable and potentially less alert to hostile radars.


Non-VLO JDAM-ER glide-bomb has wings just big enough for a constant weight within a narrow glide-speed range so will be comparatively easy to track at much longer ranges and will seriously lack maneuverability (except in a fairly steep terminal dive), due to the tendency to stall or quickly lose viable range to the target. It offers potentially a lot of undesirable early-warning via the high-end SAM sensor.

That weapon requires a very cheap medium-range and low-performance interceptor against something that can't do agile. And can't hide without a MALD-J or such supporting them.

But the cruise missiles will increasingly mimic VLO JASSMs or JSM type airframes, a clean VLO glide-body and short swept but wider wings for the speed and agility, plus designed to cope with efficient cruising at high-altitude, while it has the full-fuel load for a maximum range extension.

The result will logically be much later detections and tracking, and very problematic targeting challenge, at much closer range when it's almost out of fuel, and much lower weight. They will approach the target with very large control surfaces for the weight (i.e. surfaces designed to cope with much higher weight in rarefied air). Plus the terminal phase has much more oxygen available and a much lower weight at either full power, i.e. a thermally self-destructive thrust level for maximum speed. Or else it may use no power for a maximized range and colder slow stealthy glide-in at near to maximum achievable range reserving a steep terminal fast and agile dive.

So they will be very agile and especially hard to target and engage (i.e. like anything else VLO that breaks the kill-chain easily), so tracking will be much later, and locking-on should be a big problem that's hopefully too difficult until it's too late.

For that you need very expensive sensors and a very agile and very fast high-performance short-range interceptor (not much time for shoot-look-shoot).

Personally, I don't see where a long-range SAM is that desirable, unless you're going after a high cruising F-35 with some sort of multi-meter VHF wavelength tracking system with enough track precision for a self-guiding terminal phase to complete a lock after launch when close.

But of course an F-35 DAS is going to produce a YATO warning early, and it's almost certain to then break the track and move out of the way of the terminal seeker, thus easily trashing some very expensive missiles (and also firing at the sensor simultaneously with an AIM-260).

Thus extended-range heavy-weight SAMs may be just the wrong missile emphasis for a 5th-gen and agile VLO cruise missile fight.

Which is nice.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 14:44
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:TOR was overwhelmed by SDB/SPEAR swarm. JASSM-ER is powered and stealthy. Take your pick. I have full confidence in the ability of an F-35 to get within SDB range of S300/S400/TOR without being fired upon.


The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle. And they would have plenty of time to shoot down an SDB swarm. JASSM is stealthy but it's flying directly to the radar trying to detect it. It will be detected. Now if they made a variant with submunitions that dropped off, say, 35 20lb terminally guided gliders from 10-15 miles out. . .I don't know how you kill that short of DEWs.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 15:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle.

being able to engage 4 targets simultaneously means nothing. 8 command guided missiles per vehicle vs 8 SDBs per aircraft that has the most effective jamming suite on earth. Saying there is more than one vehicle just means more than one F-35 is needed to drop an SDB swarm. The TOR has to rely on 100% hit rate to survive. The F-35 doesn't.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 15:48
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
sferrin wrote:The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle.

being able to engage 4 targets simultaneously means nothing. 8 command guided missiles per vehicle vs 8 SDBs per aircraft that has the most effective jamming suite on earth. Saying there is more than one vehicle just means more than one F-35 is needed to drop an SDB swarm. The TOR has to rely on 100% hit rate to survive. The F-35 doesn't.


I presume you mean SDB 2 which isn't limited to GPS? Depending on the target they could also have lasers for blinding optics and EW vehicles. Those could make it difficult for SDB2 to see it's target.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 15:59
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:TOR was overwhelmed by SDB/SPEAR swarm. JASSM-ER is powered and stealthy. Take your pick. I have full confidence in the ability of an F-35 to get within SDB range of S300/S400/TOR without being fired upon.


The latest TOR can handle four simultaneous targets and there's never just one vehicle. And they would have plenty of time to shoot down an SDB swarm. JASSM is stealthy but it's flying directly to the radar trying to detect it. It will be detected. Now if they made a variant with submunitions that dropped off, say, 35 20lb terminally guided gliders from 10-15 miles out. . .I don't know how you kill that short of DEWs.

Yes, but MALD/MALD-J/MALD-X make them waste missiles (they have to reload, and they don't have unlimited magazine depth,) and AARGM-ER kills them if they emit. They have to overcome that, as well as F-35s full of GBU-39/53s, and the EW/EA support hiding the incoming ordnance. As for JASSM being detected in time, that's a big if. Presumably, some smart folks have put some thought into penetrating densely protected sites.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 16:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
sferrin wrote:I presume you mean SDB 2 which isn't limited to GPS? Depending on the target they could also have lasers for blinding optics and EW vehicles. Those could make it difficult for SDB2 to see it's target.

Guidance system for GBU-53/B
Millimeter wave Active radar homing / Semi-active laser guidance / Infrared homing (using an uncooled imaging infrared camera) / GPS coupled Inertial guidance / Data-link

Good luck stopping all those modes of guidance on each munition, meanwhile to stop TOR you only need to jam the host vehicles radar. Again, this is in the F-35s favor.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 17:40
by sferrin
Just sayin' it's likely to be way more complicated than, "drop a load of SDBs and say bye-bye to the S-400 site".

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2019, 18:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Pretty sure I was saying that you could drop a load of SDBs and the S-300/400 defenses are degraded/depleted.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 01:12
by weasel1962
and if really, really don't like the site, there's always the JSOW-A with the nasty BLU-97s. Not sure whether the JSOW-A are integrated but the F-35 is supposed to be able to internally carry JSOWs. ER version for legacies which can launch way outside of the S-series envelope.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 03:00
by madrat
I don't think jamming TOR radars is a bulletproof solution. The fact is TOR was made for a jammed environment. You have to eliminate the control vehicle(s) to neutralize the system.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2019, 04:09
by element1loop
Given the RCS advantage, meaning delayed targeting at much shorter range, F-35 will just 'thread-the-needle' past most heavy SAMs unless one is being used as a point-defense for a target-set or central area that you absolutely must hit, and hit early.

But even in that case a VLO missile can 'thread-the-needle' too (LRASM for instance, and I'm wondering if JSM with radar/radio sensor will be able to do it too), to make effective initial strikes of the critical high-value targets.

While simultaneously going after the main active sensors with the range of weapons above, which if nothing else, will distract everyone and every system, thus further aiding the weapons that are going after the primary targets to be hit.

The layered air-defence is thus far from impenetrable with affordable in service weapons (and very soon on F-35).

Thus such point-defence heavy SAMs become ineffective at their primary tasks of preventing a successful attack or deterring/killing an attacker. It looks like a big failure waiting to happen if core targets are smoked, even after all of the resources put into defending Godzilla's SAM air-defence system.

And in the cases where a heavy SAM complex is used as distributed area defense, F-35 just flies around those and pop-ups (after firing a multirole AAM at it), and prioritizes them lower to kill at leisure when pressure is lower.

Else have Growler and Vipers using an orbiting F-35 as real-time local data pipe (provides ESM, EA, ELINT, SIGINT, AEW&C, JSTAR and MALD-J) with which to approach and plink away at an S-400 network, using AARGM-ER, JSM, SDBII and/or a small hunter-killer drone delivered via a VLO gliding drone-dispenser to mop-up S400 vehicles as orbiting F-35 finds and PIDs with ESM, SAR and EOTS.

The only thing missing here is a VLO gliding drone-dispenser (JSOW-ER may suffice) and a loitering hunter-killer drone with a receive datalink for targeting guidance updates on moving target remnants, for DEAD via orbiting F-35s.

All other F-35s keep up the main attack, F-22A kills fighters, IADS is on the blink.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 06:57
by marauder2048
madrat wrote:I don't think jamming TOR radars is a bulletproof solution. The fact is TOR was made for a jammed environment. You have to eliminate the control vehicle(s) to neutralize the system.


Which is a corollary to active missiles where the launchers can still be dangerous even if
the FCRs have been disabled.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:23
by squirrelshoes
marauder2048 wrote:Who said anything about missiles? These are slow moving glide weapon and the defense is more likely to be confident in their characterization of these wapons and the estimate of predicted impact points.

Something hurled at another target is a missile. If I launch a rock from a catapult it's a missile. Speed is irrelevant to the definition of missile, a hyper velocity projectile is a hell of a lot faster than a TOW missile.

missile noun
Definition of missile (Entry 2 of 2)
: an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike something at a distance
stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles
: such as
a : GUIDED MISSILE
b : BALLISTIC MISSILE

How do you know the defense is more likely to do anything a certain way? Are there examples of an IADS defending a high value target choosing to not engage a potentially devastating incoming missile with their best weapons as soon as the incoming threat is spotted?

marauder2048 wrote:We are talking about a disciplined opponent who will be making every effort to solve the
hard (in the computational complexity sense) interceptor allocation problem.

No, "we' aren't, you are talking about a disciplined opponent. I merely threw out that JDAM-ERs could very advantageous from an economic perspective because of how expensive SAMs are, you've since tried to pigeonhole the discussion to some imaginary disciplined enemy force that you've designed an engagement doctrine for. Non-disciplined opponents have expensive missiles too.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:40
by squirrelshoes
nathan77 wrote:I'm even more sceptical that 'slow moving' glide bombs would be ignored by more expensive SAM batteries.
Afterall, there's no guarantee that point-defences can reliably mop them up (nothing is 100%). Especially when swarm tactics can be so easily employed by the attacker.

For example, there's this infamous video of a functioning & loaded Pantsir system failing to stop an Israeli attack:
https://youtu.be/NI0REqlYhmc

Exactly. Weapons fail all the time, that's why there juicy targets often have rings of defenses and often two rounds are fired at a single target. I've never served in USN but I'd wager if someone launched a large glide bomb at a US destroyer from 50 miles away the commander is immediately putting a couple SM-2s in the air, and priming ESSM. He/she is not going to just say bah let's let the whizz gun have 'em since they are slower with predictable trajectory.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 10:42
by squirrelshoes
weasel1962 wrote:and if really, really don't like the site, there's always the JSOW-A with the nasty BLU-97s. Not sure whether the JSOW-A are integrated but the F-35 is supposed to be able to internally carry JSOWs. ER version for legacies which can launch way outside of the S-series envelope.

There was actually someone on here awhile back saying this wouldn't be a threat to a modern AA gun system since it would just shoot down all 144 submunitions. :D

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 17:40
by sferrin
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:Who said anything about missiles? These are slow moving glide weapon and the defense is more likely to be confident in their characterization of these wapons and the estimate of predicted impact points.

Something hurled at another target is a missile. If I launch a rock from a catapult it's a missile.


That might be the dictionary definition but not really relevant here.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 18:25
by squirrelshoes
sferrin wrote:
squirrelshoes wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:That might be the dictionary definition but not really relevant here.

When it needs to be pointed out because someone else is nitpicking "who said anything about missiles" in a discussion of glide bombs flying towards targets at hundreds of miles per hour, relevant enough.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 23:43
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
nathan77 wrote:I'm even more sceptical that 'slow moving' glide bombs would be ignored by more expensive SAM batteries.
Afterall, there's no guarantee that point-defences can reliably mop them up (nothing is 100%). Especially when swarm tactics can be so easily employed by the attacker.

For example, there's this infamous video of a functioning & loaded Pantsir system failing to stop an Israeli attack:
https://youtu.be/NI0REqlYhmc

Exactly. Weapons fail all the time, that's why there juicy targets often have rings of defenses and often two rounds are fired at a single target. I've never served in USN but I'd wager if someone launched a large glide bomb at a US destroyer from 50 miles away the commander is immediately putting a couple SM-2s in the air, and priming ESSM. He/she is not going to just say bah let's let the whizz gun have 'em since they are slower with predictable trajectory.


Except you actually have a current debate within USN circles about the proper firing doctrine.
Look at the Pk for something like ESSM Blk II and cost and inventory density relative to SM-6.

https://csbaonline.org/about/news/peeling-back-the-layers-a-new-concept-for-air-defense

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2019, 23:50
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:and if really, really don't like the site, there's always the JSOW-A with the nasty BLU-97s. Not sure whether the JSOW-A are integrated but the F-35 is supposed to be able to internally carry JSOWs. ER version for legacies which can launch way outside of the S-series envelope.

There was actually someone on here awhile back saying this wouldn't be a threat to a modern AA gun system since it would just shoot down all 144 submunitions. :D



You need 9 BLU-97s per 1000 sq ft. for a .85 probability of hit (not kill) with the shape charge on a vehicle that's 200 sq ft.
JSOW-A was never flown on trajectories to achieve that density. And if you actually have to accommodate the possibility
that a mobile target might relocate the submunition density is really quite low or the weapons expenditure is
ridiculous.

Re: SDB II Scores Hits in Flight Tests

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 00:06
by marauder2048
squirrelshoes wrote:How do you know the defense is more likely to do anything a certain way? Are there examples of an IADS defending a high value target choosing to not engage a potentially devastating incoming missile with their best weapons as soon as the incoming threat is spotted?


GWI: the Iraqis spotted TLAM pretty early but only engaged it with MANPADS because the intended
target area (Baghdad) was predictable.