You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Air Force - A Day Late and a Dollar Short
2007-10-22
October 22, 2007: The U.S. Air Force has produced an innovative dud with its new SDB (small diameter bomb). Turns out that while the SDB was being developed, a lot of cheaper competition showed up. Work began on the 250 pound SDB smart bomb, seven years ago. It was set to enter service in 2006, and did so. But the only aircraft equipped to drop it is the F-15E. The SDB was tested in the F-22 (PHOTO), but there are no plans to deploy F-22s carrying SBD, for several years.

SDB (small diameter bomb) is a completely new smart bomb design, weighing only 250 pounds. This weapon has a shape that's more like that of a missile than a bomb (70 inches long, 190 millimeters in diameter), with the guidance system built in. The smaller blast from the SDB is still pretty substantial (51 pounds of explosives). A new SDB design has a Focused Lethality Munition (FLM) warhead, which reduces the number of metal fragments created when the bomb explodes, and increases the blast effect. This is meant to reduce casualties to nearby civilians. But there are cheaper solutions to the $50,000 SDB.

Basically, if you add high precision to a bomb or missile, you increase its cost by $25-50,000. But while cost is a consideration, it's not the only one. You need just enough explosives to do the job. Too much bang, and you just endanger your own people. More important is availability. The infantry need their explosion when they need it, not when the air force gets around to it. Thus the army prefers to rely on precision weapons they control. One of the first, widely successful precision weapons to show up was the fifty pound TOW anti-tank missile. It has a 13 pound warhead, and, when wars broke out, was mainly used for taking out rooms in buildings where enemy gunmen were hiding. It was a TOW that got Saddam Husseins two sons four years ago. Every mech infantry unit has plenty of TOW missiles, and very few enemy tanks to use them on. So the TOW has become a very popular precision weapon for the ground troops. Since the 1990s, a more portable ground combat missile, and just as accurate as TOW, came along in the form of the 26 pound Javelin (PHOTO), with its nine pound warhead. These two missiles are expensive, with TOW costing $25,000 each, and Javelin $75,000.

For a smaller bang, there's the AT4 rocket launcher, and its four pound warhead. It's not laser guided, and you have to be pretty close to use it. But at the normal ranges its used (a hundred meters or so), it's very accurate, and it's cheap ($2,700). The LAW is similar, smaller (2.2 pound warhead) and cheaper ($2,000).

Helicopters and UAVs use Hellfire missiles, which weigh 100 pounds, and have a 20 pound warhead. A little less than half of a missile warhead is explosives. Hellfire is laser guided, and good for taking out vehicles full of bad guys, or small buildings. Hellfire costs $50,000 each. For about the same price you can use the 44 pound Viper Strike, and its four pound warhead. Even cheaper ($25,000 each), and smaller, are the new, laser guided 70mm rockets. There weigh 25 pounds and have a six pound warhead. The Viper Strike is a laser guided glide bomb that basically comes straight down. The 70mm rocket has a range of about six kilometers.

The army also has 155mm GPS guided 155mm shells (Excalibur ) . Each hundred pound shell has about 20 pounds of explosives (PHOTO). This makes for a bigger bang than Hellfire or Tow, but much less than smart bombs. There's also a 227mm MLRS GPS rocket (or GMLRS). But this carries over 150 pounds of explosives. About half the bang of a 500 pound JDAM. The GPS guided 155mm shell and MLRS rocket each cost over $50,000 each.

The big advantage of these GPS artillery munitions is that they are available to the troops 24/7, and the need for fewer rounds per mission means there are fewer problems with running out, or low, on supplies.

Price is not really a decisive factor when it comes to these weapons. The whole point of smart (much more accurate) munitions is to reduce the number of explosions, and to only blow up what needs to be destroyed. The proliferation of rockets, smart bombs and missiles, from those with a pound of explosives (LAW) to 500 pound bombs (with 280 pounds), gives troops a lot of flexibility on the battlefield. This makes American troops much more lethal, and greatly reduces friendly, and civilian, casualties.

Although the air force had smart (GPS guided) bombs since the late 1990s, these came in only two sizes; half ton and one ton. This proved to be too much blast for urban fighting. The need for less firepower compelled the air force to quickly modify its GPS guidance kit to fit on a 500 pound bomb. But that's still 280 pounds of explosives. The troops wanted precision, and less bang.

In response, the air force (actually, the navy) developed a 500 pound bomb with all but 30 pounds of the explosives removed. All these JDAM smart bombs cost less than $30,000 each. But JDAM requires an air force or navy jet to drop it, and an air force ground controller to call it in. It's much more convenient to call in army artillery, for either a GMLRS (if you need a big bang, one that's half as powerful as a 500 pound bomb) or an Excalibur shell (which is less than half the bang of a SDB). Thus there has not been a huge demand for SDB
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#10  Moose, those robots may win the war but men will still be required to win the peace as we have learned in both Iraq & Aphganistan. Reliance on tech (plus well trained men) rolled up the "formal" opposition but left us to learn how to deal with "informal" opposition.

In addition I think it will be a long time before the eyes on the ground, the combat engineers and all of those odd-ball specialties that require judgement are not required. I suspect "robots" will be specialized tools in their toolbox.

Of course, if you don't care where the blood, bones and debris land then robots will work fine.
Posted by: Throger Thains8048   2007-10-22 23:20  

#9  THere is still such a thing as "too many" separate armed services - "too many" is good for election-minded Pols but not good for War/Battle space Management and winning Victory. The day is coming when the USAF will lose control of tactical strike and airlift to the Army, and will be in charge of ICBM and LR heavy bomber [UAV] strategic strike, and prob OTH Global BMD. As America moves towards cheaper, effective, pervasive "Genius" unmanned technology, Amers should anticpate the curr separate armed services to become more unified/centralized and into top mgt-style strategic centricity. NO FIELD SOLDIERS, ONLY ROBO HANDLERS = REMOTE? OPERATORS, REPAIR TECHNICIANS. and ultimately only PAPER/BUREACRATIC-ADMIN "TOP MANAGERS". NOW LETS ALL BE GOOD OWG AMERIKANS OF THE MIGHTY WORLD CONQUERING USSA = WEAK ANTi-SOVEREIGN USR/GLOBAL SSR AND SING THE "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA/I, ROBOT" MOVIE THEME.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-10-22 18:48  

#8  Throger Thains8048: I agree with you that in future war, the AF will not only be needed, but needed in numbers that haven't been seen since WWII.

Though the vast majority will be drone aircraft, once anybody makes a move towards drone aircraft, sheer numbers will once again come into play against quality. An F-16 might be able to engage six targets simultaneously, but what if there are twenty-five targets, all of whom are gunning for that F-16? And even if they are as cheap as a Toyota, each, and have only a machine gun, the F-16 can't stop them or even defend against them.

This, in turn means armadas of drones duking it out, with manned aircraft operating as a second echelon, taking out enemy drones that have penetrated the front.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-22 17:59  

#7  There is certainly a place for the Air Force. I'm not sure it's orbiting F-22s and F-35s over Afgahnistan waiting for a support mission.

If you're talking about Iran, Syia, etc, They have to be taken down first and the AF is the outfit to do it.

You all may be aware of the story in Afgahnistan when a CH-46 load of Rangers went onto a mountain top to try to find a lost Seal. They got ambushed and were stuck on the mountain all day taking a beating from Talibunnies dug in at the top. It took time for the fast flyers to get there and then they could not be of complete help because the targets were danger close.

They made runs as close as they could but were called away leaving the Rangers pinned down. Finally a CIA Preditor happened by and took out the enemy bunker.

All I am saying is if we had the ground based GPS weapons availble at that time, how many brave men could have been saved.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2007-10-22 17:52  

#6  The folks that don't think we will need F22, f35 forget that first you have to have control of the skies before all of the rest of the close air support stuff can be used. It may only be 3 days from the start but it is a critical 3 days. And if a quick response how do you think the troops, supplies & guns were transported to the fight? Gliders? Rockets? The Navy can't do it all.

I can't bring down arty fire if someone is blowing up my guns or spreading submunitions all over my TOC. And it's really hard to send numbers to the guns when someone has put shrapnel into my radios and I'm busy bleeding.

We won't always be fighting "insurgents".
Posted by: Throger Thains8048   2007-10-22 15:46  

#5  GolfBravoUSMC, the AF already lost the battle for control of UAV development. In sort of a Pyrrhic victory, control of UAV development was pulled up to the DoD level and is now a purple suit function. The AF has been floundering about looking for a mission since the collapse of the Soviet Union (case in point is Cyber Command). The fighter pilot generals want to fill the skies with shiny new planes, F-22s, F-35s, C-17s, etc. That isn't going to happen. The AF has been getting steadily smaller since 1989 with no end in sight.
Posted by: RWV   2007-10-22 15:28  

#4  SDBs and the Predator make a good fit. The Air Force is trying to get full control of all UAVs of any size. If the Army gets contol of Predator Q series it even further marginalizes the Air Force.

If you're in country with GPS Artillery and GPS MRLS, who needs F-15s standing off 60 miles away. Too expensive and too time sensitive to help the troops in need.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2007-10-22 14:49  

#3  The army has its own conflict, in that infantry units need what amounts to a light, direct fire cannon. But over a certain size, the artillery lays claim to cannon.

The round would be designed to penetrate fairly thick concrete. Unlike the M72 LAW, barrels would be multiple use, possibly bolt action.

The round itself could be 100 caliber or larger, with the bulk of the weapon devoted to recoil reduction. Barrel length would not be needed for long range accuracy, as with a 50 caliber rifle, but only long enough for suppressor equipment.

The purpose is to *quickly* deny enemy cover in an urban environment. Right now, it may be several minutes or longer after an enemy is known behind concrete cover to use air power or a heavier weapon to remove them.

But if that cover doesn't work, they will either have to leave immediately, or trust to luck that they don't get hit.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-10-22 14:21  

#2  I thought the really interesting features of the SDB were its standoff range (60 miles?), increasing the safety factor for airstrikes on defended localities, its difficulty of interception - unlike cruise missiles, its not going to be easily shot down - plus the large number that could be carried, which offered the possibility of saturating air defenses - a dozen F-15's could drop hundreds of SDB's on an enemy airfield at once.

The article is correct about the large number of options available for counterinsurgency operations, but the really interesting features of the SDB apply to more conventional warfare like suppressing air defenses, or attacking airfields or ships in port.
Posted by: buwaya   2007-10-22 13:55  

#1  Thus there has not been a huge demand for SDB

Was just reading an article somewhere( wretchard's?) that said the Predator and its variants were going to carry the SDB. Capacity: 16, IIRC. Seems like a good fit. Is there something in current use that makes a good replacement for arming UAVs?
Posted by: SteveS   2007-10-22 13:02  

00:00