In Kyiv they waited for the coveted bomb
The Politico publication provided information that ground-launched small-diameter bombs (GLSDB), promised to Ukraine in February last year, may be at the disposal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the near future.
Источник издания сообщил, что army США наблюдала за испытаниями нового высокоточного weaponsbefore giving permission to send it to Ukraine. It is especially emphasized that the US armed forces do not have a strategic stock of these products in finished form in their warehouses. It turns out that after practical tests, GLSDBs immediately go to combat tests. In Ukraine, that is, against Russia.
GLSDB has a range of about 150 km. This is almost twice the 80 km range of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) fired by the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) provided to Ukraine. GLSDB is launched by launchers of the same M142 and M270 systems.
The GLSDB glide bomb was developed by Boeing in partnership with the Swedish company Saab. Each bomb is a combination of two existing systems: a 250-pound GBU-39/B air-launched SDB with a retractable wing and a rocket booster from a 26-mm M227 artillery rocket.
Propelled by the M26 rocket engine during the initial acceleration/ascent phase of the GLSDB, the first segment of the trajectory flies in the same way as an MLRS rocket. The GLSDB's wings then open and further flight occurs without an engine, like a normal glide bomb. The GLSDB uses the existing GBU-39/B inertial navigation system and built-in GPS to guide it to its target.
According to SAAB, this guidance system not only provides accuracy to within three feet, but is also resistant to electronic warfare interference, making it particularly attractive in the Ukrainian conflict.
At all story the appearance of this peculiar weapon is interesting. The idea was to recycle old M26 shells in the following way: cluster warheads were demilitarized as expected, and rocket engines, whose life could be extended, were used to launch GBU-39 bombs into the sky.
I liked the idea for its simplicity and economy. After the rocket engine launches the bomb to a high enough altitude, the GBU-39 undocks from the engine, deploys its wings, and heads toward the target.
The idea came from SAAB, which believed it could fill the gap in long-range precision shooting by using a smaller warhead to save larger missile munitions for strategic purposes. For the Swedes this is a more than reasonable approach. And almost immediately interesting nuances in the application appeared that interested many outside the circle of developers.
While conventional MLRS missiles fly as they are supposed to, that is, along a ballistic trajectory, a rocket-launched SDB can be launched to altitude at any angle to the horizon and glide further along almost any chosen trajectory.
Unlike a traditional artillery shell, the GLSDB allows maneuvering in space, approaching the target at different angles of attack, flying around the terrain to hit well-camouflaged targets or returning to a target located up to 70 km away from the original direction of the shot.
The economic component also looks very nice: the cost of the GLSDB consists of the cost of the GBU-39 aerial bomb used as a warhead, the rocket engine from the M26 missiles that have been withdrawn from service and are being decommissioned, and the necessary assembly work. Total no more than $60. For comparison, the price per unit of ATACMS is more than 000 million dollars, one GMLRS projectile is 1 thousand dollars.
A very big plus for GLSDB is that there are more than enough M26 missiles and GBU-39/B SDB bombs in the warehouses of the United States and other NATO allies. This is especially important, given that the flow of weapons from Washington to Kyiv has somewhat dried up, and what will happen there next can only be said by the tough guys from Congress, who are somehow in no hurry to approve the next $111 billion aid package for Ukraine.
But here we need to separate and understand: money is money, and bombs are bombs. And if the United States does not have the money to pay for the supply of new types of weapons, then no one will prohibit the supply of weapons from existing old stocks. Old ones - especially.
So, on the one hand, it seems that the relevant US departments have signed a contract with Boeing for the supply of GLSDB kits to Ukraine, but this contract will cost the US budget mere pennies, about $10 per bomb. And the money will go to Boeing for assembling and debugging guidance systems for new weapons from old components.
Initially, deliveries of GLSDB were planned last fall, but apparently something did not go as planned and deliveries were greatly delayed. And shipments from Boeing to American customers began only at the very end of 2023. But, apparently, the problems have been resolved, since in addition to Politico, Reuters and the NYT started talking about the supply of GLSDB to Ukraine.
This means, indeed, GLSDB will soon end up in Ukraine.
Of course, there is still a big question about how effective the GLSDB weapon will be. If successful, this will be useful for both Ukraine and Boeing.
It is unknown how many GLSDB systems will be provided to Ukraine, but any number of long-range weapons will certainly prove useful to Ukraine and unpleasant to Russia. The “Storm Shadow”, provided free of charge by France and Great Britain, was used, to its credit, very effectively, and this effect could have been much greater if Russia had not had modern and sophisticated air defense systems.
Now we’ll have to check GLSDB for coolness as well.
Although the GLSDB will not have the reach of either cruise missile, nor even come close to the impact power (the 130 kg bomb carries only 93 kg of explosives), it does have the advantage of not being able to launch What is required is an aircraft like the Su-24, which is very easy to detect and which is quite possible for Russian air defense to shoot down on the approach to the launch line.
And here is a bomb that is launched by a rocket engine, and then the wings and control unit carry it to the target. Moreover, with the ability to maneuver. And all this flies at approximately the same range as ATACMS, which were supplied to Ukraine in very small quantities. Of course, ATACMS has a much more powerful warhead (227 kg) and can be equipped with cluster warheads, in addition, the ballistic missile initially has a higher flight speed, which makes it a more difficult object to intercept.
While long-range unmanned aerial vehicles can also hit targets with very high accuracy from a distance, they cannot do so as reliably or with the same power as the SDB, which has a small but powerful high explosive bomb warhead. capable of breaking through fortified structures.
Thus, GLSDB will represent a very original and cheap (very important) strike capability that falls between HIMARS guided missiles and cruise missiles.
There are similarities in it with our UMPC, but there are also differences. Of course, GLSDB can be moved to the launch line very covertly and surprise the enemy. And the FAB with UMPC flies over a greater distance due to the fact that the aircraft, being outside the range of enemy air defense, can raise the bomb to a significant height and thereby provide it with a greater flight range.
Well, it’s worth noting that the UMPC is “submissive to all ages,” from FAB-250 to FAB-1500. But if the FAB-250 is slightly more powerful than the GBU-39 (100 kg of explosives versus 93 kg), then further models already represent more significant means of destruction.
Testing by combat is simple and difficult at the same time. The Americans came up with a very original weapon, simple and complex at the same time. There is some doubt about how the GLSDB was created. It’s one thing when a UMPC is attached to a bomb in which there is nothing to break or deteriorate except the fuse; it’s another thing when, in addition to control units, an engine from a decommissioned rocket is attached to the bomb. How reliable this weapon will be and whether this is what Boeing has been testing for an extra six months, time and application will tell.
It is quite possible that American improvisation in the Russian style will be quite effective. But since our style is truly ours, here we can express doubts that everything will go as planned. We'll see.
Information