Military Review

From uncontrolled havoc to guided: high-precision guidance kits for aerial bombs

57

An A-bomb with an Al Tariq development kit developed by Tawazun Dynamics-Daniel under the wing of the South African Air Force Hawk fighter before being dropped over the Bredasdorp test site near Cape Town


Strictly speaking, a planning bomb (it’s also controlled or adjustable) is what these two words imply: a bomb acquiring the ability to plan when installing certain devices, which allows you to increase its radius of action after dropping from a carrier aircraft so that it was not necessary to fly into the danger zone. At least, when it was created, this was the original intention. It is worth noting that the planning bomb is typical weapons, used by the coalition against the IG (Islamic State, prohibited in Russia) in Rakka.

The term “planning bomb” in the military lexicon has been around for a long time, but it was often incorrectly used to describe radio-controlled devices developed during the Second World Wave, for example, Henschel HS293. In fact, it was a rocket with a jet engine and a remote control (at least in the modern sense, because the original Latin word “rocket” simply refers to any object, usually a stone, thrown with the intention to get into something, and there is no a hint of neither powerplant nor control).

Unlike most fairly sophisticated weapon systems that do not have an engine and are mistakenly called “planning bombs,” a real planning bomb really is what is described in the opening paragraph. It should be a cheap weapon, ideally an ordinary free-fall bomb, to which wings can be attached with detachable clamps and bolts so that it can fly "leaning" on the air rather than fall vertically downwards. However, as the range increased, as a direct consequence of high drop heights, increasing speeds and improving aerodynamic surfaces, the need for autonomous targeting of one type or another quickly began to appear - after all, the concept of “indirect damage” was firmly established in the dictionary of modern strategists. Guidance, above all, became a necessity when the ranges ruled out any predictability of the ballistic trajectory at such increased distances. Indeed, some of the current planning (guided) bombs are able to reach targets at a distance of about 100 km.


Bomb Mk 84 Raytheon Paveway III 2000 mass pounds (in the picture is a typical instance used by the French Air Force during combat missions against the IG in the vicinity of Raqqa). Ahead of the head is mounted with a laser seeker and a cruciform nose stabilizers

Configurations

As mentioned earlier, the transformation into a guided or planning bomb with the current level of technology is quite simple. The standard free fall is taken aviation the bomb and several elements are attached to it with removable clamps and bolts for planning, but judging by even a few photos from this article, there are essentially two ways to do this, especially when it comes to moving control surfaces necessary to hold the bomb on the required trajectories. The control surfaces can be installed in the bow in the style of "nose wheels" or more traditionally in the tail. The latter solution is suitable, first of all, for larger and heavier bombs, but it requires, as can be seen in some photographs, the installation of secure (including physically) data transmission channels that run along the bomb body and connect the nose sensor block to the rear moving ones surfaces. Oddly enough, the nasal rudder scheme was implemented on a veteran among the planning bombs of the modern era - a heavy Paveway laser-guided aerial bomb, originally developed by Texas Instruments, which was used by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam in the 60s. Known in the army under the designation GBU-1 (GBU - guided bomb unit - guided aerial bomb), the guided aerial bomb with laser guidance Paveway (later retroactively designated Paveway 1) looked rather clumsy, because it was based on a bit “thick” and without much a hint of aerodynamics of the 750-pound M117 bomb. But at that time the goal was one - to increase the accuracy of the bomb. The first Paveway model, the development and production of which was transferred to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin (partially), was followed by countless types and modifications, especially those based on the Mk84 and Mk82 bombs, respectively weighing 2000 and 500 pounds (900 kg and 227 kg).


High-explosive bomb Mk 84 (BLU-117 / B) weighing 900 kg with a JDAM kit received the designation GBU-31 JDAM

The Europeans have developed their own kit for aerial bombs, designated PGM (precision guided munition - high-precision guided munition). The very first designs were developed by the Italian company GEC Marconi, which later became Alenia Marconi, which eventually merged into what is known today as MBDA. The 500 pound bomb with a PGM kit has fairly smooth contours, since its nose and rear parts are quite large in diameter and form a single body around the bomb. The 2000 pounds bomb with this kit installs the main body uncovered. However, only a smaller kit was mass-produced, which was sold to the United Arab Emirates (at that time the only weapon of this type of non-US origin) under the designation Hakim for installation on Mirage 2000-9 fighters of the Air Force of this country.



PGM 500 (top) and PGM 2000 guided bombs


The name of this Diamond Back kit (diamond on the back), created by MBDA, is self explanatory. The Diamond Back kit (in the figure with spread wings) can be installed on virtually any guided bomb with the sole purpose of significantly improving its planning properties.

From uncontrolled havoc to guided: high-precision guidance kits for aerial bombs

The Raptor kit (named after the Raptor 1 when the Raptor 2 was already planned) was the first copy of the planning bomb. Initially, he was controlled by radio teams, but later received a television GOS. According to South African pilots, he was sensitive to sun glare and could only be applied with limited force when the sun was above the horizon line. Most likely, the Raptor 2 version has not progressed beyond the development phase (photo below)


The Bobing SDB's small-diameter bomb, equipped with a Diamond Back kit, will hit the target in an instant. Diamond Back is also used along with the Jdam kit, which later developed into the Jdam-ER version.

Later, new systems with a greater range and higher accuracy appeared, but this time due to the adoption of sets of wings located approximately above the center of gravity of the bomb in order to gain additional lift, which even large protruded cruciform tail rudders of the later Paveway bomb models could not offer. . The final decision came in the form of folding wings, opening into the flight configuration after the bomb had moved a safe distance from the aircraft. Here, an example of such a construction immediately comes to mind - a Diamond Back kit from MBDA, which can be fastened with clamps to existing Paveway bombs with an installed guidance set: a sensor unit and cruciform control surfaces located immediately behind it. The Back Diamond kit provides lifting power to increase the radius of the bombs 20.

However, long before the appearance of the kits attached to the clamps, the firm Kentron, a division of Denel, apparently laid the way for the technology of planning bombs in its current form. The development of the Raptor system began in the 70-ies and after its completion it entered into service with the Mirage F1 fighter aircraft of the South African Air Force, which at the time was fighting with Angola. Unlike the Diamond Back, the Raptor kit's drop-down wings were attached to the bottom of the bombs, and a small screw in the tail section fed the electronics of the bomb in order not to depend on the power system of the aircraft carrier. As for the bombs equipped with the Diamond kit, they turn over after the wings unfold.

The Raptor II kit, which was supposed to include a pair of parallel-mounted jet engines installed under the wing block, was not completely finalized. Instead, Denel developed the Umbani kit and showed it at Africa and Aerospace Defense 2004. He made his first flight on the Mk82 aerial bomb from the Hawk fighter in 2011. According to the company, that time she flew to 40 km. In spite of the pictures commissioned by the company, demonstrating the dumping of an aerial bomb with this kit from a South African Gripen aircraft, this system will not be realized in the near future, since huge investments are needed in certification of its use from a supersonic aircraft. However, things can change with the certification of the Al Tariq kit, developed by Tawazun Dynamics. It is worth noting that, nevertheless, the South African air forces purchased the Paveway IV bombs to arm their Gripen fighters.

In order to increase the range of the existing Spice series of guided bombs, Rafael also developed a set of wings mounted under the fuselage.



Rafael has developed the Spice 1000 kit, which is attached to the Mk83 bomb. Air bomb equipped with folding wings in the bottom of the fuselage, has a range of up to 60 km. Equipped with a dual-aiming system (a CCD and an infrared camera on the final part of the trajectory), the bomb recognizes its targets using the comparison system of the reference and real display of the terrain. Rafael Announces Three Meter Probable Circular


If there is no need for extreme ranges, then the Boeing company's offer in the form of a Jdam GPS-guided kit might be a good offer for approximately 20000 dollars, which is about five times cheaper than its laser-guided counterparts. As a rule, it allows you to have a maximum range of 30 km and a typical accuracy of about 10 meters. After transferring the target coordinates to the system, the bomb is ready to be dropped.

The matter is simplified when using a simple GPS-receiver or inertial measurement unit, because in this case there is no need for a complex sensor module in the nose. In this case, it suffices only to have a tail block with movable stabilizing surfaces, such as the Boeing Jdam (Joint Direct Attack Munition) equipment set, which transforms existing free-fall bombs into all-weather corrective measures. This system is a set of wings, fastened in the middle part of the bomb, and the tail unit, having tail. It was originally developed by McDonnell Douglas and first used in Kosovo at the end of the 90s. Since then, the kit has been sold to 26 countries. Good ideas are often adopted by others, especially when they are simple. This is exactly what happened with the Turkish HGK high-precision targeting kit developed by the Scientific and Research Institute of the Defense Industry of the Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council Tubitak Sage. This kit actually reproduces the sliding Jdam design used as aerodynamic stabilizers. According to the manufacturer, this kit provides a circular probable deviation of the entire 82 meters for the Mk10 aerial bomb with an inertial navigation system, and when the GPS is activated, the entire 6 meters. When dropped from a high altitude, the range is about 30 km. Jdam kit for its part is mounted on the 2000-pound bomb Mk84 and 1000-pound Mk3.


The At Tariq kit at the Tawazun booth at Dubai Air Shaw in November 2015

Engine

For various reasons, rocket boosters were installed on several models of guided bombs. In addition, accelerators can increase the range of such weapons, which can reach 100 km when dropped from high altitudes, they allow you to launch guided bombs either from light jet aircraft (even from aircraft originally designed as training), or from lower altitudes. At the same time, an aerial bomb with jet accelerators on board can climb along a steep trajectory, for example, for a further almost vertical dive, which allows minimizing indirect damage. This, however, determines the very high accuracy of operation not only for the homing head (GOS), but also for controlling aerodynamic surfaces, which should instantly react to corrective commands from the GOS. Currently, weapons of this type, such as the AASM modular guidance system from Sagem in steep dive mode, have reached meter accuracy.

Denel's Umbani system was originally offered with a rocket booster, but Denel could not confirm whether work was continuing on it. Such development seems unlikely due to the new Tawazun Al Tariq kit.

Earlier, the PGM kit from MBDA and its use for armament of Mirage 2000-9 Emirates Air Force fighters was mentioned. However, later with its purchase some difficulties arose. But nothing motivates and stimulates the country to develop its own version of weapons and its improvement, as depriving it of the opportunity to use it in their own interests. The Emirates, together with their company Tawazun Dynamics and South African Denel, entered the market with the AL Tariq system in two versions. One is a more traditional scheme like that of the Paveway, and the second with dorsal folding wings to increase the range (see the first photo). In truth, the Al Tariq suite is very similar to the Urnbani production version. The simpler of the two options was demonstrated in South Africa in April 2015; A bomb dropped from a Hawk aircraft hit this target with impressive accuracy.


The Umbani system, based on the Mk84 aerial bomb and first introduced by Denel in 2004, served as the basis for the development of Al Tariq


The photo shows two of the three options for AASM. In the foreground with a laser seeker, and immediately behind it with a system of inertial and GPS guidance (in the background is the Paveway II bomb). The third version of the AASM is equipped with an infrared hsn and resembles with its glass sphere a variant with a laser hsn

Homing heads

Homing (as opposed to active remote piloting using a joystick) can be achieved through various methods. The most popular is the laser; in this case, the nasal sensor of the carrier searches for a laser spot (as a rule, in the near IR region of the spectrum) on the ground and swoops on it. In recent years, lasers and laser hfs have made a giant leap in their development, especially in the context of stable operation in bad weather conditions (but, again, only to a certain limit). But at the same time, the laser-guided technology has the disadvantage that a constant “illumination” of the target is necessary by a targeting system installed on a carrier plane or another air vehicle (which can also be a drone) or a laser light station serviced by the operator on the ground.

Another method that may have emerged before anyone is to use television homing systems or homing systems in contrast to the target. The pilot or co-pilot directs the camera to a predetermined target, after being captured for tracking, the rocket flies in its direction based on contrast recognition (or pixel-by-pixel). However, this method has its limitations, especially in bad weather conditions, with low contrast, as well as in bright sunlight when reflected reflections from the surface, usually a lake or river, can blind the camera with dramatic consequences, if, for example, the target was the bridge.

Another solution is a combination of a CCD camera and an infrared sensor. This system with higher characteristics allows the bombs to swoop on the target, the image of which is stored in memory. This type of GPS in combination with an inertial unit and a satellite receiver is used in the Rafael Spice 1000 system.

Inertial guidance provided by inertial measurement units is often used in many weapons systems due to relatively low cost, but in this case it is rather difficult to obtain high accuracy. And here comes the GPS - a brilliant satellite navigation system, which appeared in the 1995 year. When the problems with signal reception delay were resolved, the global positioning system became absolutely necessary in a number of military areas, including such unassuming weapons as guided or planning bombs.

Satellite navigation systems (the Russian GLONASS has already been deployed, and Europeans will soon receive their own Galileo system) are also used in laser guidance systems, since when the communication channel is broken, they can take over the guidance functions. In this case, the system is called a dual-mode laser / inertial GOS, which, for example, equip the Paveway IV bombs.

Thus, it is not surprising that in response to the challenges of time, more and more bomble control kits are offered with three variants of the guidance system, as can be seen in the example of the French modular guidance system AASM.


China also has its own version of the GPS-controlled bombs. LS-6 1000-pounds weight with drop wings developed by Catic. The manufacturer does not name the maximum range, but declares a circular likely deviation of 13 meters



A planning bomb called the Drill of the development of the NPO Basalt completes state tests. According to the manufacturer, the range when moving away from the carrier is 30 km


Materials used:
www.shephardmedia.com
www.tawazundynamics.ae
www.raytheon.com
www.mbda-systems.com
www.boeing.com
www.deneldynamics.co.za
www.rafael.co.il
www.bazalt.ru
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. bober1982
    bober1982 16 November 2016 08: 18
    0
    The article, or translation, is very messy, with a lot of gross errors.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 16 November 2016 15: 44
      +3
      Quote: bober1982
      The article, or translation, is very messy, with a lot of gross errors.



      It is also not clear why the publication photographs the American nuclear bomb B61. what
      1. Karaul73
        Karaul73 17 November 2016 21: 47
        0
        Yes, because this bomb, after modernization, is already planned and managed.
      2. Petio
        Petio 19 November 2016 22: 50
        0
        This is GBU-31 JDAM with BLU-109
  2. FID
    FID 16 November 2016 08: 19
    +5
    Engines, wings, seeker and other pribluda ... Doesn't it seem to your colleagues that these are, roughly speaking, near-range missiles? Excluding the so-called "mathematical decoupling" (I think that automation specialists will understand me).
    1. oblako
      oblako 16 November 2016 12: 45
      0
      Interpenetration of technologies is a natural process and it is observed not only in this type of weapons. "The trend is the same."
      1. FID
        FID 16 November 2016 14: 02
        +1
        Bombing...?
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 16 November 2016 15: 45
      0
      Do you think that in JDAM or AASM, there is no "mathematical uncoupling"?
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 16 November 2016 08: 24
    0
    I wonder why the GOS of any type captures the target? Isn’t it easier to attach to two or three contrasting points, and calculate the target coordinates using the triangulation method?
    And where such prices come from, 20000 cu for three gyroscopes and two drives?
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 16 November 2016 08: 33
      0
      Because the pilot (navigator, operator) combines the crosshairs on the screen of the sight with the target (this is the binding), tracking, launch.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 16 November 2016 09: 11
      +2
      And what's the point? This will only complicate the system. All GOS are intended primarily for guiding ammunition in the final section of the trajectory when this method will not really work.

      It is easier to determine the coordinates of the target, including by its position relative to local objects with known coordinates and by means of an inertial control system to bring the ammunition to the zone of confident target capture by the homing head.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 16 November 2016 09: 40
        0
        The point is that it is aiming, combining the crosshairs with the target and determining the coordinates of the target, if the crosshairs are combined with a local object (as you called) - this will become the target. And the guidance of the ammunition occurs not only on the final section of the trajectory, as you indicated, much earlier, that is, we return to aiming again.
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 16 November 2016 10: 15
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          The point is that it is aiming, combining the crosshairs with the target and determining the coordinates of the target, if the crosshairs are combined with a local object (as you called) - this will become the target. And the guidance of the ammunition occurs not only on the final section of the trajectory, as you indicated, much earlier, that is, we return to aiming again.


          Quote: Spade
          And what's the point? This will only complicate the system. All GOS are intended primarily for guiding ammunition in the final section of the trajectory when this method will not really work.

          It is easier to determine the coordinates of the target, including by its position relative to local objects with known coordinates and by means of an inertial control system to bring the ammunition to the zone of confident target capture by the homing head.


          The pilot selects the point of impact of the bomb. If the bomb has a GOS, no matter which IR, optical, radar, laser, it is easier for the GOS to capture two three contrasting points, and it is aimed at them at the target.
          To add to the inertia also some kind of GOS, expensive however.
          GOS should remain on the carrier :)) And then on GLONASS, or in the big inertial war.

          And yet, why are inertial GOS and GOS with satellite correction so expensive?
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 November 2016 10: 27
            0
            I don’t quite understand what you’re talking about, about which two or three contrasting points, and what does it mean the pilot chooses the point of bomb fall? The on-board computer chooses, and the one who works with it.
            1. demiurg
              demiurg 16 November 2016 10: 41
              0
              Quote: bober1982
              I don’t quite understand what you’re talking about, about which two or three contrasting points, and what does it mean the pilot chooses the point of bomb fall? The on-board computer chooses, and the one who works with it.

              Okay, let’s say differently, on the tactical display, select a point, hammer the coordinates with the handles in the digital computer, take the coordinates from the ground / air gunners no matter.

              The target can be underground, and have neither a radar signature, nor IR, nor TV. But there may be something contrasting nearby. To the contrast object and snap coordinates.
              1. bober1982
                bober1982 16 November 2016 11: 30
                +1
                to hammer the coordinates with the handles in the computer ... , everything is correct, and it’s done, these same coordinates are entered on the ground, when redirecting the same handles, already in the air, i.e. coordinates are entered.
                to a contrasting object and snap coordinates ...
                again, everything is correct, it is called to perform aiming on EBT (a natural remote point), you aim using a r / l sight on a river bend that is far from the target, and the bomb flies exactly at the target (or inaccurate, and it happens) Here it depends of how the pens worked, and of course the head.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 November 2016 10: 21
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          The point is that it is aiming by combining the crosshairs with the target and the coordinates of the target are determined, if the crosshairs are combined with a local object (as you called), this will become the target.

          Sorry, but you wrote some nonsense.
          To use modern guided ammunition, seeing a target is not necessary at all.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 November 2016 10: 42
            0
            You puzzled me how to aim, why? And the article is about guided bombs, and guided b / p is used from different planes, from Tu-95, or Su-34, or Su-24, and there are different means of destruction for everyone.
  4. bober1982
    bober1982 16 November 2016 09: 01
    +1
    The article is of course unsuccessful, and the foreign expert got it wrong, and the translation is not the best. What is the ballistics of an air bomb - the most vague ideas, the same knowledge on technical issues.
    But in any case, there is benefit from such an article, you can learn something useful.
  5. mav1971
    mav1971 16 November 2016 09: 18
    +2
    Incorrect emphasis in the article.

    The main thing is that there is a massive improvement in the characteristics of ammunition through modernization available free-falling bombs by equipping them with flight control and guidance.

    Situation.
    You have hundreds and thousands of freely falling bombs from the previous decades with long life cycles in your warehouses.
    To train pilots for high-precision applications, hundreds and thousands of sorties are needed.
    The resource consumption of a glider and a lot of consumables for an airplane.
    Thousands of tons of fuel.
    Thousands of bombs.
    Nor will the result be guaranteed at 100%.
    The development of air defense, fighter aircraft, etc. - All this will interfere with the bombardment of free-falling bombs.

    And here is the option.
    Buying modules for an upgrade for some kind of 20 thousand dollars or euros.
    What do we get as a result.
    A total of 5-10 training bombing missions for training and training on the application.
    Saving hundreds and thousands tons of fuel, hundreds of air bombs, glider resource, engine resource.
    The likelihood of accurate bombing is getting closer and closer to 1.

    This is much more beneficial both for the army and for the economy as a whole.
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 16 November 2016 10: 25
      0
      [quote = mav1971] [/ quote]

      20000 tanks per bomb, expensive. Normal costs within 1000.
      19000 dollars. More than a million rubles. That's what can cost so much in an inertial GOS?
      Desirable by points.
      Servos ......
      Housing with rudders ......
      Three-six-nine gyroscopes .....
      Controller.....
      Something tells me that more than 3-4 thousand dollars there can not cost anything (and this is with work and R&D) The rest is the greed of the manufacturer and kickbacks.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 16 November 2016 10: 53
        +1
        You can probably agree about the manufacturer’s greed, about kickbacks - after all, it seems to you that such bombs (controlled) were very expensive in Soviet times, they didn’t know about kickbacks then.
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 16 November 2016 10: 59
          0
          Quote: bober1982
          You can probably agree about the manufacturer’s greed, about kickbacks - after all, it seems to you that such bombs (controlled) were very expensive in Soviet times, they didn’t know about kickbacks then.

          But what can such a mountain of money cost?
          Okay, the last century, microelectronics in its infancy. Then ordinary computers like an airplane were worth it. In 90 years, the PC / XT was changed to the Volga 31029.
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 November 2016 11: 15
            0
            But what can such a mountain of money cost?
            Complex production, there is no competition, a monopoly on production, skilled labor, which, as they said in one film, must be paid properly, in short, a troublesome business.
            1. demiurg
              demiurg 16 November 2016 11: 24
              0
              Quote: bober1982
              [i] there is no competition, a monopoly on production.

              All the rest does not matter))
              I looked at RBC like a pederach, there one of the dealers of Japanese cars in Russia argued that the production of cheap cars brings too little profit.
              And he indicated the prospect for the automotive industry, like a car full of all sorts of features.
              A person needs to go, and he is offered to go along with the rugs and radio tape recorder at a space price, plus unrealistic prices for the service, without which there is no guarantee.
              Autocenters receive the lion's share of profit from the sale of small things, and after-sales service. Compare the price of logan for taxi, and sandero. In fact, 70-80 percent are the same cars.
              This long post to the fact that someone is satisfied.
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 17 November 2016 15: 02
                0
                Quote: demiurg
                Quote: bober1982
                [i] there is no competition, a monopoly on production.

                All the rest does not matter))
                I looked at RBC like a pederach, there one of the dealers of Japanese cars in Russia argued that the production of cheap cars brings too little profit.
                And he indicated the prospect for the automotive industry, like a car full of all sorts of features.


                Uncle just drove you in the ears.
                Uncle stupid. From 90's.
                There are 2 ways to attract profits in trading.
                1. at extra charge.
                2. on the back.
                At the extra charge. car worth 50 thousand dollars. When selling 25 thousands of dollars were earned from one client, and then they were still slightly milked at the service. - 10 thousand car sales per year. 25 million in sales. + 10 million on the service (on parts and maintenance). Total 35 million revenue
                By turnover. A car worth 10 thousand dollars. They took 5 of thousands of dollars from one client and then we milked well at the service. - 100 thousand car sales per year, 50 million profit on sales + 50 million on the service (2 times cheaper maintenance and parts). Total profit 100 million in revenue.

                This is how business is done.
                Real money is made on cheap shit, not luxury goods.
      2. RASKAT
        RASKAT 16 November 2016 14: 53
        0
        I absolutely support. The price is clearly overstated several times.
        And gyroscopes in an inertial seeker are generally laser ones that are one of the cheapest.
        As for me, so the next cut of money.
      3. mav1971
        mav1971 16 November 2016 21: 56
        0
        Quote: demiurg
        Quote: mav1971


        20000 tanks per bomb, expensive. Normal costs within 1000.
        19000 dollars. More than a million rubles. That's what can cost so much in an inertial GOS?
        Desirable by points.
        Servos ......
        Housing with rudders ......
        Three-six-nine gyroscopes .....
        Controller.....
        Something tells me that more than 3-4 thousand dollars there can not cost anything (and this is with work and R&D) The rest is the greed of the manufacturer and kickbacks.


        Those. you, like any Soviet citizen, maybe even an engineer think that a product is only worth the cost of metal?

        Well, let's calculate it like this:
        1. R&D
        modeling - thousands of machine hours, thousands of hours of work of dozens of highly qualified employees. you do not put locksmith Vanka at Ansys, Fluent, Flowvision, CATIA software.
        How much does a highly qualified aircraft designer cost an employer in the States?
        Approximately 80-100 dollars per hour.
        By the way, how much is "Katenka" there?
        About 50-80 thousand dollars per job ...
        Workstations, high-performance SCS, storage systems for the project - even under a hundred or two hundred thousand dollars. It takes a lot of money to make test copies "using manual technology". Yet again.

        Field tests.
        It is necessary to provide 2-3 of a dozen sorties with real throw tests for a complete telemetry analysis.
        Those. approximately 25 thousand dollars per hour of flight of F-16 or 35 thousand thousand aircraft with Mig29 + approximately 8-10 hours of after-flight service.
        On different types of aircraft.
        In different conditions of use ..
        Total departure costs of approximately 70-80 thousand dollars, taking into account all depreciation and other costs.
        Buy or rent a bunch of telemetry equipment. Amounts can be millions of dollars.
        Telemetry analysis, structural analysis in real use - again, hundreds of hours of machine, and workers with specialists.
        Improvements in the design - re-calculations - re-test manual production - re-throwing tests.
        Cost figures may already double at this stage.

        Well, that’s it. Testing is over.
        It is necessary to prepare the product for commercial (read combat - weapons production).
        Calculation of the economic production process.
        Technology, machinery, supplier prices, their capabilities and production plans.
        Payment for writing software code for avionics aircraft to the developer of this avionics.
        A aircraft may be a couple of dozen.
        And to each developer - you have to go to the bow. To pay him money. Not weak.
        This is not a site in WordPress to work hard.

        Real tests begin with the participation of "re-flashed" combat vehicles - another 10-20 sorties at ranges in combat performance.
        Already tripling costs.

        And marketing begins.
        Travel to exhibitions with specialists. To carry mock-ups and other POS materials. which you need to print, pay 3 to animators for beautiful pictures, etc.
        Rent parts of pavilions and hotels, carry mock-ups.
        Pays, pay and pay.
        There are already tens of millions of costs.
        Well, the very, very minimum 10 million expenses.
        But nothing has been sold and nothing has been done.
        Well, let it turn out the cost of materials, production, components, assembly - 4 thousand dollars.
        But this is not the cost. These are direct manufacturing costs only.
        All previous R&D is not included in this cost.
        Well, what should be the cost and what is the sales volume, so that those 10 million spent would be recouped?
        500pcs must be sold at 20 thousand, just to go to zero at previous costs.

        And people have to pay here and now, they want money for the work done - they don’t care if you sell or not.
        Accordingly, it is necessary to earn a "pillow" in advance. for the continuity of the work cycle.
        So we get the price of the kit from 35 to 70 thousand dollars apiece.
        And the 20 of thousands that Boeing is currently offering is a penny, for it has already released almost 250 of thousands of such sets.
        The system is worked out and licked so much that they can already consider the cost price only at the cost of components, materials and work.
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 16 November 2016 12: 31
      0
      Our bombs were not optimized for tactical aviation, but for bombers (to get into the bomb bay as much as possible). Almost all stupid, stabilizers of the Second World War.
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 16 November 2016 13: 31
        +1
        Almost all stupid ......These are air bombs of the 1946 and 1954 models, although it is not necessary to release these years. Namely models, bombs are effective. Not blunt bombs are more modern models, 1962, but also not necessarily this year of release.
        Our bombs were not optimized for tactical aviation, but for bombers ......
        It’s not clear. IL-28, Yak-28, Su-24 planes are classic tactical bombers.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 16 November 2016 15: 01
          0
          And we have a lot of bombs with low-drag cases that can be used as the basis for creating a planning modular system? Offhand: FAB-500M-62, FAB-500T
        2. Talat
          Talat 17 November 2016 09: 44
          0
          Well, we were able to adapt our old MiG-25s to toss these bombs. And old-style bombs with refinement (+ marching engine and + wings). What is the ceiling of the mig-25 25-27 km? Will the Armenian S-300 at a distance of 100 km at an altitude of 25 km be able to get these twinks?


          If we could, then Russian military engineers would not be a problem. If not already done.

          Details here: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1010341.html
  6. andrewkor
    andrewkor 16 November 2016 09: 23
    0
    After attacks on Libya with high-precision weapons, NATO remained without them for a long time!
  7. corporal
    corporal 16 November 2016 09: 39
    0
    The most unpleasant thing is that of our developments, only finished products. There are no kits that convert ordinary old FABs to UABs.
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 16 November 2016 11: 32
      0
      As it is not, the Hephaestus SVP-24 complex. Old penny ammunition excellent results with 5-6 km.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 16 November 2016 12: 16
        +2
        Turn on the brains (whoever has them, of course) ...
        To accurately get uncontrollable cast irons at a target from a height of 5 km you need:
        - know the ballistics of each bomb (i.e., conduct field experiments and understand how a bomb flies from a bomb thrown from a certain height at a certain velocity of the carrier), build a ballistic model
        - know the weather data at the point of discharge: temperature, pressure, humidity, and most importantly: the direction and speed of the wind at all altitudes of the bomb.
        Conclusion
        For the normal operation of Hephaestus, it is necessary to previously (at a small time interval) carry out a meteorological survey (using a satellite or an airplane, a UAV-metodvedka).
        Hephaestus cannot provide accurate bombing in the event of:
        - reconnaissance weather data, for example, the weather in the target area is changing rapidly due to the passage of the atmospheric front
        - air flows in the target area at different heights behave non-laminarly, i.e. gusts of wind take place.

        Here is such a non-weather "miracle weapon", as opposed to, for example, bombs with satellite guidance.
        Not to mention that only stationary targets with known coordinates can be bombed
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 16 November 2016 12: 37
          0
          There is a mode of operation for moving targets, not only for stationary targets.
          To accurately hit an uncontrollable cast iron on the target ......... you need:
          It is not necessary. There is no need to build any ballistic models, and the digital computer continuously reads weather data.
          1. Cympak
            Cympak 16 November 2016 14: 53
            +1
            Which device is interesting to know?
          2. Cympak
            Cympak 16 November 2016 15: 16
            0
            The CCRP-mode of bombing has long been implemented in the digital computer, taking into account the coordinates of the target, the ballistics of ammunition and weather conditions in the target area. Only these parameters are laid in the computer during take-off. And if in the area of ​​the target the direction of the wind changes? Will you manually reprogram it? But how can Hephaestus solve the problem of the effects of wind gusts on a dropped bomb? I understand how this is solved in JDAM, and why one ANN is not enough, and GPS is also needed.
        2. RASKAT
          RASKAT 16 November 2016 13: 16
          0
          And how then to explain the fact that the aviation commander in chief said that the system has proved itself from the best side and from now on it will be put on all modernized and new aircraft. And how to explain the accuracy with which our VKS bomb the enemy with conventional bombs?
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 November 2016 14: 21
            0
            But the accuracy of bombing with conventional bombs is very high, even with the Il-28, Yak-28, Tu-16, Tu-22, the accuracy was high, where all the data on combat use had to be calculated and manually entered into the aiming systems, which brought that accuracy and you’ll get (simplified to say).
            And on the Tu-22m and mod., The Su-24, the work was simplified, everything was counted, calculated and introduced by the on-board computer, which was achieved by high accuracy: I see the goal, the crosshair, turned on ...., Shayu! discharge Something like that, a joke.
          2. Cympak
            Cympak 16 November 2016 15: 24
            +3
            And he should, in your opinion, tell the people that the weapons located in combat units are outdated both morally and physically ... that we are 10-20 years behind America and NATO? Compare for yourself what America in 1991 bombed Iraq in the first Gulf War, and what we are bombing in Syria now.
  8. Operator
    Operator 16 November 2016 11: 43
    +1
    An excellent overview of the current state of affairs.

    There is no only trend analysis. In short, the transition from kits intended for the modernization of freely falling bombs to specially made planning bombs, as well as to universal seekers, including:
    - basic inertial system;
    - GPS receiver;
    - multispectral optical receiver (visible image, NVD, infrared image);
    - automatic tracking of the target (when homing) or reflected laser radiation (with external target designation);
    - A database of images of typical targets from various angles.
  9. RASKAT
    RASKAT 16 November 2016 11: 46
    0
    Let the enemy cast out as he wants. In my opinion, we have almost the entire range of weapons for almost all aircraft. The article just does not indicate how much such know-how will cost. Something tells me that no less than a rocket. And if so, then why change the awl for soap?
    These ammunition, almost all without marching engines fly due to inertia, so that they flew to the maximum range they need to be thrown at maximum speed and maximum height. And they somehow forgot about air defense, our normal air defense system at a range of 30-40 km will cut down this aircraft as a target at the training ground.
    Is not it?
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 16 November 2016 12: 26
      +1
      Modern NATO planning ammunition (JDAM, JSOW, SDB, AASM, SPICE, etc. see above) allow you to deliver high-precision strikes without entering the coverage area of ​​numerous short-range air defense systems (TOR, Tunguska, Strela, Verba, Shell) being in the air defense coverage area of ​​medium radius of action (BUK). And a few long-range air defense systems will be suppressed by electronic warfare and destroyed by HARM / AARGM
      1. bober1982
        bober1982 16 November 2016 12: 49
        0
        ... minimize the time spent in the medium-range air defense coverage area
        This time will be quite enough to bring down, and no minimization will help.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 16 November 2016 14: 52
          0
          Not enough ... after the reset, enemy planes have time to leave the affected area, and in response HARMs
          1. bober1982
            bober1982 16 November 2016 14: 56
            0
            I will not say anything so as not to anger SSI
      2. RASKAT
        RASKAT 16 November 2016 15: 15
        0
        And a few long-range air defense systems will be suppressed by electronic warfare and destroyed by HARM / AARGM

        It is doubtful that our air defense systems have a regimental structure (I mean the military air defense segment) C-300 (c) C-400 regiments are completed !!! A smaller division is unlikely to act if it starts. And these are 8 radars in one division. It is quite possible to interfere (despite the high noise immunity of the complexes) to one complex, but when their 8 (+ attached station 96л6е), and if it is a regiment of 3 divisions then 22-23 stations. Somehow I hardly believe it.
        And no one will wait until the target reaches the second and third echelon of Buk, Tor, Shell. Only the target will appear on the farthest approaches will immediately be attacked.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 16 November 2016 22: 11
          +1
          Quote: RASKAT
          And no one will wait until the target reaches the second and third echelon of Buk, Tor, Shell. Only the target will appear on the farthest approaches will immediately be attacked.

          As soon as the radar is detected - it will immediately be fired by a cloud of PRLR.
          With a flight range of 100 km and speeds of 3-4М.
          The experience of attacks on Iraq and Yugoslavia is an example.
          Nothing is being done "separately" now.
          Cutlets are always with flies.
          Everywhere is an integrated approach.
  10. FID
    FID 16 November 2016 14: 07
    +4
    Lord, don’t do it, people who are not involved in aviation, and even more so, in combat aviation, who, well, say, can’t imagine what combat aircraft are, to interpret the actions of this aircraft and, say, bombing ....
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 16 November 2016 14: 35
      0
      Well, why not? if people are interested. Me and those who know what combat aircraft are - they (similar articles) are not needed, too primitive, then to whom? then for those who are interested.
  11. RASKAT
    RASKAT 16 November 2016 15: 27
    0
    Quote: bober1982
    I will not say anything so as not to anger SSI

    Me too, let yourself be amazed that our air defense is worthless. All the harder will be the realization of truth at hour H. am
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 16 November 2016 15: 42
      +3
      Just don’t need to engage in cap-making ... We must try to objectively assess our opponent’s capabilities and capabilities, including skills, tactics and logistics
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 16 November 2016 22: 18
      +1
      Quote: RASKAT
      Quote: bober1982
      I will not say anything so as not to anger SSI

      Me too, let yourself be amazed that our air defense is worthless. All the harder will be the realization of truth at hour H. am


      Losses will be in both air defense and aviation.
      Recall 08.08.08.
      Although the Georgians had shitty air defense, 4-6 aircraft were shot down.
      And they completely lost their air defense.
      So everything happens in "both gates"
      1. RASKAT
        RASKAT 17 November 2016 03: 44
        0
        All comparisons of the characteristics of weapons and equipment in their own way are also not true, they often do not take into account the professionalism of our soldiers and officers. In skillful hands and horseradish balalaika. And if at the remote control a krivoruky monkey is sitting, then medicine is powerless here.
  12. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 17 November 2016 11: 39
    +1
    But what does the author not tell about our planning bombs? As far as I know, we have had such a long time, and with the TVGSN and other gadgets. Or is it a secret? No need for new ones. About old ones.