1000 KG Glide Bomb Capable of hitting a target 100 KM away was successfully tested.

[Omega007]

First of all.
Do we have any such projects?If yes I will agree with you.At current situation we dont know whether there is a project likeisin there or not .

That's why the use of the word 'SHOULD'.We didn't know about this one even a few months ago,we knew only about the Sudarshan LGB kit...........but now it's here.So I firmly believe that powered variant will also be developed in due time.What makes me so sure??Well call it a hunch.........and the fact that a couple of years ago,DRDO had flight tested a pulse-jet engine on board an experimental UAV.Now where is a pulsejet most likely to be used??Guess for yourself.Now does it make this powered variant an assured thing ---- not at all but it only means there remains a possibility that such an option might be exercised in time.

People are not realistic in there.
Did you actually think you can take on China like that way ?

Well,not just this way........but using other tactics in concert to this one.And we do not need to take them out,we have to hold them long enough and for that you have to somehow disable (at least temporarily) PLAAF's Forward Air Bases.And for that role,a saturation attack with stand off PGMs will be the most cost effective way.Sure you could use some Brahmos but wait!!A single Brahmos would cost about 4 million USD a piece -just imagine how many guidance kits can be produced in that sum!!And don't think for a moment that disabling their runways for once would do the job..........you have keep the pressure on,keep hitting them at regular intervals (otherwise they will simply repair those airstrips and I don't need to say anything more)...........if you try that with Brahmos the nation will go bankrupt even before the war is over!!

Man you are talking about a nation having entire stealed tech and R&D .We dont know whether they acquire S400 or not .If not they will surely copy it.

Ok,if they haven't aquired the S 400s yet,then how could they ever manage to copy the same??!!Just try to realize the self-contradiction in your statement.And lastly,it would be stolen,not stealed.

Your version of PGM is also not applicable in China case.
You have to encounter PLAAF .

Please don't just post sweeping statements mate,try to back up your claims with the reasoning behind your statements as well,you are on a discussion forum and that much is expected from you here.Just a bit of a friendly advice.
And I never discounted the PLAAF out of equation.In fact that's the very reason why I am stating that 100 km range is not enough for the northern front.By the way,do you even know that a powered glide bomb will have even greater range than your Brahmos.............so if the former can't be useful against a perceived threat just on the accounts of lack of sufficient stand off range,then how can the later be expected to be effective against that same enemy??!!It's just doesn't make any sense.

You cant take them as the same way of the PAF.

Of course not and neither have I claimed as such.

Only thing you can do in northern theatre is a blitzkerg ops with Brahmos support .Indian Forces cant sustain against them for a long time .

JESUS F*CKING CHRIST!!!! DAMN!!!!Look what you just did.............you just made an atheist to take the name of Jesus!!

Bhai just tell me whether this is a glide bomb or something like Apache anti-runaway cruise missile as pointed out by Great one??
P.S.-I am really confused in this matter and hence need your technical help

No,this one is a glide bomb like the Pakistani H4,Israeli Spice family and the normal variants of AGM-154 JSOW from USofA.

My mistake as I said. I didn't follow the dialogue from the beginning and only from where you quoted me. That changes various points of my argument which considered a normal SOW of 100-150km range. (I didn't even know the ER version of JSOW existed)

Man,I could be a moron but not one that big!!

 

[Basel]

Too bad, you folks are going to miss all the fun that comes with imposing a clusterfuck on your enemy using the cluster-bomba.

View attachment 177707

Nah, this can happen again if India and Pakistan (to both sides) go to war, both have sensor fused munitions available to them India got US one and Pakistan got Chinese (although Pakistan also make local one but not a smart weapon).

 

[The Great One]

Man,I could be a moron but not one that big!!

Its non-operational/non-primetime/has no threads/been in dev. for 5 years
Not to mention you didn't bring it up in your reply, so its really your fault


Anyway coming back (and forgetting previous points)

While the CBU type munition is a very deadly and necessary weapon to have,a more pressing need of the hour is a dedicated anti runway version,preferably a powered one with a Durandal type warhead that can destroy enemy airstrips from stand off distances without the strike aircraft needing to enter the SAM envelope.That kind of a glide bomb will also be far cheaper than a cruise missile would be and that's why can used more generously for mounting a saturation attack to overwhelm the enemy ADGE.After the air fields are taken out,the rest will become just a turkey shoot.

A glide bomb whether powered or not, will remain - very low speed, non maneuverable, having a very illuminating flight profile etc. meaning its going to get shot. Saturation is certainly the way to go in this strategy but all this while we are risking the strike aircraft atleast with aerial engagements. All this is avoided with Land Attack Cruise Missiles. India will not go bankrupt if we use 1000 BrahMos, for one if we use them, they would already be in the inventory. War-time production wouldn't be hampered by any economic technicalities.
Not to mention that JSOW-ER has a price target of $350,000 - not exactly cheap, certainly not for saturation. Its certainly good to have but not for the role

BTW if you were talking about glide bombs, then how did ya think of Apache.

 

[Hellfire]

drag component is same for 10000th meter to 6000th meter in both scenarios A & B?


in your example of artillery shell,

A. happens entirely at low level
B. happens entirely at high level

i am not sure of my other thought

without drag, one cannot glide. (gavity+weight - drag = it will drop straight down)

without drag we will need propulsion to move side wise

- in shell , drag opposes the forward movement reducing the velocity
- in gilde, drag opposes the downward movement, bigger the wing, greater the glide

There is a term known as High Glide Ratio. This is getting into realm of external ballistics which confounds everyone who is not a borderline genius (or a nut). Anyways, the interplay of drag, gravity, lift , and thrust has to be taken into account. Plus the angle of deployment. Parameters will be too many. You are right that the characteristics of the drag will vary at the two altitudes you have hypothetically quoted, But at the same time, drag, while may be contributory to the lift, is also opposing the linear velocity of a projectile. Now reduce the drag, your lift may go down but your linear velocity is higher and this results into a kinetic energy. Now couple it to the designing of the High Glide Ratio fins of the bomb or for that matter take the example of the Parachute used by Special Forces for HAHO (high altitude high opening) deployment, the parachute enables them to glide to 50 to 60 kms from initial jump point by gliding in spite of deployment of the parachute at levels of 25000 ft ASL plus. On the other hand, the bomb has been designed for a range of 100 kms at sea level, thus my contention that these bombs are also High Glide Ratio designs and there may not be significant effect on their range in north. Additionally, couple it to the figures of Chinese troops concentrations I have quoted above, you will get the rationale for why it is equally effective in both areas.

you need air to float on. Less air density means you glide less and fall quicker. High altitude range for this weapon will be reduced significantly after compensating for lesser glide height available.

Say you drop from 30,000ft at sea level, the distance it will have covered at 15,000ft will be less than what it will cover from 15,000ft to 0ft due to much higher air density available at lower altitudes. When you're dropping from 30,000ft onto a surface that's already 10,000ft above sea level, the range per drop height will drop significantly. But that also depends on the design of the bomb and it's wing. If it has wings that extend more for higher altitudes, it could compensate for this.
Maybe they'll develop a special high altitude version...

Theoretically you are bang on, but please, the design of these weapons are based on a high glide ratio. The same as in HAHO parachute. Since there is no onboard motor to the weapon, the weapon is unpowered and solely relies on the design and principles of aerodynamics and external ballastics. While you have taken into account the drag being less hence glide less, you have totally negated the linear velocity of a projectile being released from a height which is travelling in a parabolic path with a certain initial velocity which will increase significantly in its angular path due to decreased drag and hence result in a higher momentum thus granting it additional distance in the angular flight path. You have to take into account all the facets and not merely the drag. Additionally, you can not mix up the thrust (opposed by drag) and lift and gravity pull. And since the characteristics of the bomb are same, the higher the deployment, the higher the range. Suggest google the same, there are quite a few complicated formulae for these if you google up External Ballistics

 

[The Great One]

Nah, this can happen again if India and Pakistan (to both sides) go to war, both have sensor fused munitions available to them India got US one and Pakistan got Chinese (although Pakistan also make local one but not a smart weapon).



View attachment 177726 View attachment 177727

Is that thing deployed/operational/integrated with JF-17?

 

[Basel]

Is that thing deployed/operational/integrated with JF-17?

JF-17s can now carry those and many more new stuff.

 

[The Great One]

JF-17s can now carry those and many more new stuff.

Pics/Source please.

 

[Basel]

Pics/Source please.

PAF never put an official link for weapons it has, there are many standoff weapons PAF have since 90s but they never show them, but pic of weapons with JF-17 is clear msg that all of those are integrated with it.

 

[The Great One]

PAF never put an official link for weapons it has, there are many standoff weapons PAF have since 90s but they never show them, but pic of weapons with JF-17 is clear msg that all of those are integrated with it.

View attachment 177734

View attachment 177736

Good for you I guess.

 

[Basel]

Good for you I guess.

Hope Indian don't believe that JF-17 can carry all of those it will be beneficial for Pakistan

On topic: what are specification of this bomb?

 

[Faiez]

Theoretically you are bang on, but please, the design of these weapons are based on a high glide ratio. The same as in HAHO parachute. Since there is no onboard motor to the weapon, the weapon is unpowered and solely relies on the design and principles of aerodynamics and external ballastics. While you have taken into account the drag being less hence glide less, you have totally negated the linear velocity of a projectile being released from a height which is travelling in a parabolic path with a certain initial velocity which will increase significantly in its angular path due to decreased drag and hence result in a higher momentum thus granting it additional distance in the angular flight path. You have to take into account all the facets and not merely the drag. Additionally, you can not mix up the thrust (opposed by drag) and lift and gravity pull. And since the characteristics of the bomb are same, the higher the deployment, the higher the range. Suggest google the same, there are quite a few complicated formulae for these if you google up External Ballistics

My point was that increasing target altitude would exponentially decrease range, at constant launch altitude.
That's all.

What kind of a parabolic path is it? Will the bomb start pointing vertically and then slowly get more horizontal? or launched horizontal, slowly getting vertical as it approaches target ?

 

[applesauce]

just a guided bomb people, nothing game changing. it does give IAF additional options, but hardly gonna decide the outcome of war against Pakistan and certainly not a decider in any conflict with china.

 

[sathya]

There is a term known as High Glide Ratio. This is getting into realm of external ballistics which confounds everyone who is not a borderline genius (or a nut). Anyways, the interplay of drag, gravity, lift , and thrust has to be taken into account. Plus the angle of deployment. Parameters will be too many. You are right that the characteristics of the drag will vary at the two altitudes you have hypothetically quoted, But at the same time, drag, while may be contributory to the lift, is also opposing the linear velocity of a projectile. Now reduce the drag, your lift may go down but your linear velocity is higher and this results into a kinetic energy. Now couple it to the designing of the High Glide Ratio fins of the bomb or for that matter take the example of the Parachute used by Special Forces for HAHO (high altitude high opening) deployment, the parachute enables them to glide to 50 to 60 kms from initial jump point by gliding in spite of deployment of the parachute at levels of 25000 ft ASL plus. On the other hand, the bomb has been designed for a range of 100 kms at sea level, thus my contention that these bombs are also High Glide Ratio designs and there may not be significant effect on their range in north. Additionally, couple it to the figures of Chinese troops concentrations I have quoted above, you will get the rationale for why it is equally effective in both areas.



Theoretically you are bang on, but please, the design of these weapons are based on a high glide ratio. The same as in HAHO parachute. Since there is no onboard motor to the weapon, the weapon is unpowered and solely relies on the design and principles of aerodynamics and external ballastics. While you have taken into account the drag being less hence glide less, you have totally negated the linear velocity of a projectile being released from a height which is travelling in a parabolic path with a certain initial velocity which will increase significantly in its angular path due to decreased drag and hence result in a higher momentum thus granting it additional distance in the angular flight path. You have to take into account all the facets and not merely the drag. Additionally, you can not mix up the thrust (opposed by drag) and lift and gravity pull. And since the characteristics of the bomb are same, the higher the deployment, the higher the range. Suggest google the same, there are quite a few complicated formulae for these if you google up External Ballistics

yep i have failed to consider the velocity component
more drag , the velocity reduces
just learnt , Drag Vs Lift curve is 'U' shaped, i would love to read more physics into it
still i would prefer to ask few others opinion too

@ gambit
@ sandy_3126
@ the-deterrent

kindly refer the posts 11, 13, 18, 19 & 21
and give your opinion if possible..

 

[Hellfire]

My point was that increasing target altitude would exponentially decrease range, at constant launch altitude.
That's all.

What kind of a parabolic path is it? Will the bomb start pointing vertically and then slowly get more horizontal? or launched horizontal, slowly getting vertical as it approaches target ?

Again not so. It is like this. If you have a hang glider and it is released from 15000 ft and travels a certain distance, then the same glider and all conditions remaining same (in terms of thermals, jet streams etc) if released from 25000 ft, the glide path of the glider due to difference in altitude is such that, that the glider will go further from 25000 ft in comparision to 15000 ft. Extrapolating the same principle, if you take into account the deployment of the bomb, the initial deployment altitude of the bomb in both low altitude area and high altitude being same, the falling projectile will enter from a low drag into a high drag area as it moves from higher altitude and approaches mean sea level in the low altitude deployment. Whereas in the high altitude, this is negated (although distance to target is reduced due to high altitude region) So the initial glide path in both remain same ... hence the performance is not affected until and unless the density is increased of air (as drag increases) Mind you the lift is not being created by the drag, and you have to take into account the Bernoulli's principle for the lift

Please do go through this link

exterior ballistics

It is too tiring ... and exhausting

 

[SrNair]

That's why the use of the word 'SHOULD'.We didn't know about this one even a few months ago,we knew only about the Sudarshan LGB kit...........but now it's here.So I firmly believe that powered variant will also be developed in due time.What makes me so sure??Well call it a hunch.........and the fact that a couple of years ago,DRDO had flight tested a pulse-jet engine on board an experimental UAV.Now where is a pulsejet most likely to be used??Guess for yourself.Now does it make this powered variant an assured thing ---- not at all but it only means there remains a possibility that such an option might be exercised in time.


Well,not just this way........but using other tactics in concert to this one.And we do not need to take them out,we have to hold them long enough and for that you have to somehow disable (at least temporarily) PLAAF's Forward Air Bases.And for that role,a saturation attack with stand off PGMs will be the most cost effective way.Sure you could use some Brahmos but wait!!A single Brahmos would cost about 4 million USD a piece -just imagine how many guidance kits can be produced in that sum!!And don't think for a moment that disabling their runways for once would do the job..........you have keep the pressure on,keep hitting them at regular intervals (otherwise they will simply repair those airstrips and I don't need to say anything more)...........if you try that with Brahmos the nation will go bankrupt even before the war is over!!


Ok,if they haven't aquired the S 400s yet,then how could they ever manage to copy the same??!!Just try to realize the self-contradiction in your statement.And lastly,it would be stolen,not stealed.


Please don't just post sweeping statements mate,try to back up your claims with the reasoning behind your statements as well,you are on a discussion forum and that much is expected from you here.Just a bit of a friendly advice.
And I never discounted the PLAAF out of equation.In fact that's the very reason why I am stating that 100 km range is not enough for the northern front.By the way,do you even know that a powered glide bomb will have even greater range than your Brahmos.............so if the former can't be useful against a perceived threat just on the accounts of lack of sufficient stand off range,then how can the later be expected to be effective against that same enemy??!!It's just doesn't make any sense.

Of course not and neither have I claimed as such.



JESUS F*CKING CHRIST!!!! DAMN!!!!Look what you just did.............you just made an atheist to take the name of Jesus!!






No,this one is a glide bomb like the Pakistani H4,Israeli Spice family and the normal variants of AGM-154 JSOW from USofA.



Man,I could be a moron but not one that big!!

Ok you also agreed that is also a possibility.Let its become a reality .Then we can talk about it.Whether you like it or not .China is twice stronger than us.Naturally they will mount offense only thing we can do there is to defend them with our means.Whether PGM like yours or this only helpful when we can stop PLAAF from entering our airspace.
We have only two types of Aircraft in our inventory that useful for such a bombing campaign .One is Su30MKI and other is Mirage.And only in limited numbers.
I dont think these limited airplatforms can overcome them.
May be we can make a change if we got Rafale FGFA.
They already have S 300 and they can install hundreds of them deep behind the enemy lines .
God knows their advancement in Radar .If they can manage to detect a flight formation against them in our airspace .They can target our aircraft with these S300 copies .And also can unleash PLAAF.
PGM wouldnt be game changer against China like that is in the Pakistan.Against Pakistan thesesystem alone will fry their entire eastern based defence installations. Because for China like you said we need a saturated attack .A perfect saturated attack with hundreds of airplatforms.We can imagine something like that only if we manage to build up our IAF with atleast 45 squadrons .

All I am saying is that we cant sustain against for a long period .A quick strike with maximum punch will do the trick.
@sancho your opinion please.