Military Review

CLEAVER project: how to turn conventional transport vehicles into strike aircraft

39

As part of its innovation, the Pentagon, among other things, is implementing a program for the development of palletized ammunition. This type includes shells placed on cargo platforms. The latter can be dropped from an aircraft transport vessel, allowing him to act as a bomber.


The U.S. defense is now focusing on the CLEAVER project. What is noteworthy, it provides for the development of a specialized palletized projectile. The new type of ammunition has four stabilizers and a streamlined design. Visually, the bomb resembles an AGM-154, the “fins” of which allow it to soar over long distances.

As expected, the mechanism works according to the traditional scheme. The pallet (in the case of the CLEAVER project - with two bombs) is dropped from a transport aircraft using a parachute. When it is flipped in the air, the ammunition is already in free fall mode.

In general, this idea is designed to provide the possibility of a forced increase in the number of shock aviation. Thanks to the CLEAVER program, an ordinary transport aircraft will be able to turn into a bomber, thus increasing the combat power of the Air Force in the desired direction.

Photos used:
www.thedrive.com
39 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kars
    Kars 28 May 2020 16: 25 New
    11
    This option is only by poits, or in a total war when air defense was crushed. What is it for.
    1. Mitroha
      Mitroha 28 May 2020 17: 16 New
      13
      They are coming up with, in case of a threat of conflict, their transit civil and transport sides will sprinkle with peas, solely in order to avoid and "out of harm's way"
      Who would want to find out their stuff there
      1. Zomanus
        Zomanus 30 May 2020 14: 25 New
        0
        By the way, yes, although the idea is certainly not bad.
        This is either when air defense is suppressed, or from hopelessness, when there are no bombers.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 28 May 2020 18: 10 New
      +2
      In principle, the idea of ​​using transporters is not Nova. Even in Spain, 52 of the Junkers bombed. At night and not with a stick but with hands.
      1. KCA
        KCA 28 May 2020 19: 13 New
        +3
        In the Second World War, all passenger LI-2 (DC-3) were converted into transporters and bombers, armed
    3. Piramidon
      Piramidon 28 May 2020 19: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Kars
      This option is only for poits

      Provided that there are many Papuans and all in one heap. It seems to me something like a dump truck. Turned over, and to whom God will send. request
      1. Aqr009
        Aqr009 28 May 2020 22: 12 New
        +1
        Turned over, and to whom God will send.

        Well, why is it necessary for manpower, it can be anti-bunker bombs, as well as railway nodes or electrical substations. Again, if you bomb the dam or the oil pipeline, the damage will be done multiple times.
        It is more a terrorist weapon than a military one.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 29 May 2020 11: 57 New
          0
          For such work, even more, a sight is needed, but not a single navigator of the An-12-x or IL-76-x in my service worked with such a device. The familiar OTAP did not do such things.
  2. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 28 May 2020 16: 36 New
    +2
    History goes in a spiral. Such projects were very popular in the 1930s. The transporter in the passenger, the passenger in the bomber ... And other options
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 28 May 2020 16: 41 New
      +4
      In the USSR, to the very end, if I am not mistaken, transport workers also envisioned and practiced similar tasks.
      1. Reserve buildbat
        Reserve buildbat 28 May 2020 16: 45 New
        +4
        That's right. Only without alterations, but with quick-release holders
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 May 2020 17: 01 New
          +4
          Quote: stock buildbat
          That's right. Only without alterations, but with quick-release holders

          An-12 generally regularly dropped bombs directly from the cargo compartment.
      2. Ros 56
        Ros 56 28 May 2020 17: 27 New
        +2
        The USSR was full of bombing regiments equipped with Li-2, and they fought nothing. Yes, recently, bombs under the IL-76 were hung up on exercises and bombed to their full height. Of course, the effect is not the same, but nonetheless.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 28 May 2020 16: 58 New
      +6
      Quote: stock buildbat
      History goes in a spiral. Such projects were very popular in the 1930s. The transporter in the passenger, the passenger in the bomber ... And other options

      Later they were also popular. And even used in practice: the An-12 was designed taking into account the possibility of dropping bombs from the cargo compartment and was used as a bomber during the Indo-Pakistani Aoyna and, EMNIP, in Ethiopia.
      The Yankees can recall the C-130 with the "Daisy Cutter" and, EMNIP, plans to use the C-130 as directors of sea mines
      1. hydrox
        hydrox 29 May 2020 12: 32 New
        0
        What's funny: none of the commentators even hinted at the heading of the article that there was a wish from the General Staff, the Ministry of Defense allocated funds, and some of the well-known design bureaus were not averse to building a "gunship" on the An-12 platform - and talk about this in the military leadership took place about a year ago.
        This means that by today the prototype should have already been discussed and its assembly should even begin.
        Who knows how things are going with this, what design bureau is doing this, and at what stage is pr-in?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 May 2020 17: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: hydrox
          What's funny: none of the commentators even hinted at the heading of the article that there was a wish from the General Staff, the Ministry of Defense allocated funds, and some of the well-known design bureaus were not averse to building a "gunship" on the An-12 platform - and talk about this in the military leadership took place about a year ago.
          This means that by today the prototype should have already been discussed and its assembly should even begin.

          PMSM, this idea was supposed to die after those involved in it learned the age of the living An-12. We also remembered where Antonov Design Bureau and the engine-manufacturer for An-12 are located.
          1. hydrox
            hydrox 29 May 2020 19: 56 New
            0
            The machine is Soviet, so figs with it, with design bureau, and AI-20 analogues, it turns out, we do not produce.
            Then how do An-12s fly now?
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 1 June 2020 10: 12 New
              0
              Quote: hydrox
              The machine is Soviet, so figs with it, with design bureau, and AI-20 analogues, it turns out, we do not produce.
              Then how do An-12s fly now?

              Just like all aircraft of the Air Force and Civil Aviation with Motor Sich engines - we have engine repairs, new engines go from there in different ways. Boguslaev never missed a profit. smile
              Dunning's quote about the actions of the capitalist with 300% profit in this case is more relevant than ever.
    3. hydrox
      hydrox 29 May 2020 07: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      Such projects were very popular in the 1930s. Transport worker in passenger, passenger in bomber ...

      And not only in the 30s: already after the war, the An-12 transporter became the An-10 passenger, the Tu-16 bomber became the Tu-104 airliner, and the Tu-95 bomber became the Tu-114 main airliner.
  3. V.I.P.
    V.I.P. 28 May 2020 16: 41 New
    -5
    It turns out no targeted bombing? They just throw a big bomb, approximately ..... Plants can be bombed so or residential buildings. And what else can you bomb with this method. In theory and there is no sight
    1. Phoenix
      Phoenix 28 May 2020 17: 12 New
      +9
      Adjustable bombs, for example, on GPS. They don’t really care how to throw accurately.
    2. Piramidon
      Piramidon 28 May 2020 23: 18 New
      0
      Quote: V.I.P.
      Plants so you can bomb or residential buildings

      Provided that there will be no opposition.
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 May 2020 16: 41 New
    15
    Rather, the transport can be turned into a drone carrier. Then it is possible not to approach the enemy's air defense, but to let the "chain dogs" on him. Catch the surviving "dogs" back using the net.
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 28 May 2020 17: 29 New
      0
      The network will trust you. laughing hi
    2. Piramidon
      Piramidon 28 May 2020 23: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Catch the surviving "dogs" back with a net

      If the drones are "smart", with the presence of AI, they themselves should fly into the cargo bay. laughing
    3. eklmn
      eklmn 29 May 2020 02: 36 New
      +2
      "Rather, the transport can be turned into a drone carrier."
      Such a program exists with DARPA. They tested it in early 2020.
      “DARPA conducted the first test of a new type of drones that can be launched from an airplane in a swarm and caught in the air when they do their job.”
      https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/31/304849/darpa-is-testing-drone-swarms-it-can-launch-from-a-planethen-collect-mid-air/
      Used drones Gremlin X-61A
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3DncMeGqTg&feature=emb_logo
  5. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 28 May 2020 16: 56 New
    -3
    If you put a motor on a bicycle, it will still remain a bicycle, but not a motorcycle.
  6. AllBiBek
    AllBiBek 28 May 2020 17: 06 New
    0
    "More humanitarian bombings are needed."
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. tlauicol
    tlauicol 28 May 2020 17: 31 New
    +3
    why a bomb when you can rocket?
    2nd minute

    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 29 May 2020 00: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      why a bomb when you can rocket?

      I once read that the An-124 "Ruslan" was designed with the possibility of "converting" it into a carrier of X-55 cruise missiles!
  9. domovoy doma_2
    domovoy doma_2 28 May 2020 17: 32 New
    +2
    one of the options for oversaturation of enemy air defense with cheap ammunition, outside the air defense zone.
  10. eklmn
    eklmn 28 May 2020 18: 08 New
    +4
    Video with the reset from the plane “mother_all_bomb” to the program has nothing to do. But what it has is a link in the article to the AGM-154, and such ammunition is dumped.
    Original article here:
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33716/air-force-unveils-first-test-of-arsenal-plane-concept-and-new-cleaver-munition
    From the original article:
    “The description of AFRL warheads and guidance systems as“ optional ”also indicates that CLEAVER is a modular design. If true, this could mean that it could potentially accommodate other payloads, including non-kinetic ones, such as electronic warfare silencers. The AFRL press release also mentions the ultimate goal of using an ammunition system on pallets to deploy a swarm of "semi-autonomous weapons with network inclusion," which "accompanies remotely piloted aircraft and fighters in combat missions."
    Photo AGM-154 in this article:
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20446/jassm-is-grabbing-headlines-but-the-navys-own-stealthy-weapon-is-set-to-get-way-more-capable
  11. vkd.dvk
    vkd.dvk 28 May 2020 23: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Aqr009
    Turned over, and to whom God will send.

    Well, why is it necessary for manpower, it can be anti-bunker bombs, as well as railway nodes or electrical substations. Again, if you bomb the dam or the oil pipeline, the damage will be done multiple times.
    It is more a terrorist weapon than a military one.

    Do you imagine the technology of dumping pallets? To get somewhere, you need good sights, and millisecond responsive reset mechanisms. Otherwise, you will not get into the dam, but three kilometers past. GLONAS aiming? Bombs will be more expensive than airplanes. Transport workers, with their flight altitudes and speeds. Radar signature. Crew training.
    Drop ammunition sabotage units behind enemy lines will go. And then, if the enemy is a camel.
  12. Revolver
    Revolver 28 May 2020 23: 23 New
    0
    There is a bomb in the US arsenal that no bomber will raise, called MOAB, officially the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, and unofficially Mother of All Bombs. So under these bombs adapted transport C-130. Well essno, before sending the C-130 on a mission, the area is cleaned of everything flying and anti-aircraft, but the effect of this bomb is vaguely reminiscent of a long loaf, only without undesirable radioactive consequences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB
  13. vkd.dvk
    vkd.dvk 28 May 2020 23: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: Nagan
    There is a bomb in the US arsenal that no bomber will raise, called MOAB, officially the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, and unofficially Mother of All Bombs. So under these bombs adapted transport C-130. Well essno, before sending the C-130 on a mission, the area is cleaned of everything flying and anti-aircraft, but the effect of this bomb is vaguely reminiscent of a long loaf, only without undesirable radioactive consequences.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_MOAB

    Meet the Father of all Russian-made bombs. 4 times more militant. And it’s easier, which allows you to throw yourself from any heavy bomb. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_vacuum_power_bomb
  14. Mwg
    Mwg 29 May 2020 03: 50 New
    +1
    The concept comes from the USSR - things of dual use: for peace and for war at the same time. Even the Strugatsky brothers wrote about this in "Predatory Things of the Century".
  15. Ruby
    Ruby 29 May 2020 10: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    In principle, the idea of ​​using transporters is not Nova. Even in Spain, 52 of the Junkers bombed. At night and not with a stick but with hands.

    This unit, although it was designed as a purely civilian aircraft, had the ability to quite easily alter both a bomber and a military transporter. Actually with them the bomber aviation of Germany began. Guernica on their conscience by the way. Well, of course, they didn’t bomb it there :) They had regular bomb racks.
  16. iouris
    iouris 29 May 2020 12: 02 New
    0
    Stylistic analysis of the test: "how to turn ordinary transport aircraft into strike aircraft."
    1) The concept of "ordinary transport workers" is empty - it does not exist in the normative state (Russian) language. Use the term "military transport aircraft".
    2) Turning a military transport aircraft into "aviation" or any kind of aviation is the same as turning an author (a person) into a "Russian people" or "humanity". This is contrary to formal logic, it is impossible.
    3) Literary version:
    CLEAVER project: to turn a transport aircraft into a carrier of long-range cruise missiles (I see SO)
  17. Quadro
    Quadro 30 May 2020 21: 21 New
    0
    But if such news about the Russian Federation jumped out, then howling and laughter would be high. And here you see high-tech bombs will be dumped out of the "trunk", not like the poor Russians.