In Kyiv they waited for the coveted bomb

110
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.

The publication's source said that the US Army observed the testing of a new high-precision 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.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +30
    February 5 2024
    How will we respond and what losses will these bombs cause to our army... that is the question... the Americans are raising the stakes again.
    1. +7
      February 5 2024
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      How will we answer?

      Yes already... the enemy is already noticing our use of "Thunder"
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      what losses will these bombs cause to our army...

      We'll find out someday
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      Americans are raising rates again.

      It’s bad that we don’t raise them for them... but we should.
      1. +6
        February 5 2024
        Quote: svp67
        question...the Americans are raising rates again

        Yes, they are not raising the stakes, but testing their weapons! We should have stopped with these jumps a long time ago negative
      2. +14
        February 5 2024
        Perhaps I agree with your arguments. We are delaying the SVO and thereby giving our opponents (of whom there are many) the opportunity to exert political and economic pressure, organize financing of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and use new weapons against our army, which lead to large losses. Now delaying the SVO is extremely dangerous and undesirable for us
        1. +13
          February 5 2024
          How can we speed up this operation? Let’s really take a look. The Russian army now is not that “invincible and legendary”, and its industrial capabilities are incomparable to those of the USSR. I personally don’t see any prerequisites for acceleration; moreover, NATO has not taken on us seriously. If they manage to deploy the mechanism of the local military-industrial complex, then we will have a hard time. We won’t talk about nuclear weapons - this is a horror story aimed at ordinary people, here and there. In reality, this is not applicable. And everyone understands this
          1. -9
            February 5 2024
            How can we speed up this operation?

            First of all, we would have to work on effectively overcoming minefields. For example, launch several dozen unmanned trawls along the front to make a passage of decent width.
            Protection against FPV drones. So far, electronic warfare seems to be able to cope with this. This should be used en masse on attacking equipment.
            Well, suppression of enemy air defense, counter-battery warfare, aviation operations to tactical depth.
          2. +12
            February 5 2024
            Well, if among many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers you storm the most fortified kilometers, specially created to stop the enemy, then, of course, there can be no talk of any speed of advance. just answer the question “what is the point in storming fortifications, followed by other fortifications, and after them third fortifications are being built, etc.”
            1. 0
              February 5 2024
              Quote: avatar123
              If, among many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, we storm the most fortified kilometers, specially created to stop the enemy, then, of course, there can be no talk of any speed of advance.

              Fair. We got involved in a "positioning" and a war of attrition. There is no trace of maneuver warfare. Where is Suvorov’s onslaught, maneuver, strike!? Why we don’t make breakthroughs like the Germans did in the first months of the war is not clear to me. And to constantly storm the Maginot Line, there won’t be enough resources.
              And here are two points:
              a) either mediocrity and incompetence in the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces (which is, by definition, excluded!) and they didn’t even learn the lessons of the Second World War;
              b) or a “cunning game of chess” under the auspices of the SVO. But this is a big game of geopolitics with strategic goals: the collapse of the Western monetary and financial system (primarily the dollar empire), the weakening of regimes in NATO countries, the creation/formation of new centers of power, the return of the Russian Federation to the status of a superpower.
              In addition to the noble goals of the SVO voiced by the Supreme Commander, there is one more, but seditious idea: holding a SVO as a way to unite the nation, cleanse the foam (fifth column), bring the country’s economy (through the development of the defense industry) to a new level of development (escape from crisis and stagnation in conditions of sanctions and economic pressure from unfriendly countries).
              And we started doing this before the capitalists of the West. That’s why we have growth, but in the EEC they have stagnation and decline.
              One can argue with this, but the Russian Federation is essentially a CAPITALIST country with an incomprehensible political superstructure.
              IMHO.
              1. +1
                February 5 2024
                And what is the growth, prices are rising, the military-industrial complex is growing. As a result of the growth of the military-industrial complex, the well-being of our population is improving. Here the USSR could not bring down the dollar, you are talking about Russia.
                1. -17
                  February 5 2024
                  Quote from Deon59
                  And what is the growth, prices are rising, the military-industrial complex is growing. As a result of the growth of the military-industrial complex, the well-being of our population is improving. Here the USSR could not bring down the dollar, you are talking about Russia.

                  1. GDP growth by 3,5%. This means the country is getting stronger.
                  2. Inflation 5,4% Therefore, prices are also rising. But the growth in real salary is about 7%. Still, in the end we are in the black.
                  3. Through the growth of the military-industrial complex, all countries of the world climbed out of the crisis. Read the story.
                  4. Under the USSR, the dollar cost 0 rubles. I remember it well.
                  5. About Russia. We, unlike the USSR, are creating a new financial system with a reserve currency (most likely the yuan) parallel to the dollar. Countries are leaving the $ zone, paying each other in national currencies. The dollar sphere is narrowing.
                  I didn't come up with all this. This is statistics.
                  1. +6
                    February 5 2024
                    Your statistics are adjusted results. In 2016, a bag of cement cost 250 rubles, now it’s 600 rubles. Over 8 years, with annual inflation, the price should have risen by 50 percent, but here the increase is more than 100 percent. My brother-in-law bought a hood for 11000, and a year later he bought exactly the same one for 16000. I can give a bunch of examples. India is pushing us rupees with which we can’t buy anything. The reserve currency was the euro and the dollar, now the yuan, and tomorrow what
                  2. +1
                    February 13 2024
                    TV is evil, stop it))
                2. +1
                  February 13 2024
                  What kind of "drop the dollar"? Here we need to figure out what to do with megatons of rupees...
              2. +1
                February 11 2024
                I understand. Put tens of thousands of lives on a breakthrough? Better for exhaustion
          3. +1
            February 5 2024
            I would suggest starting to hit the octopus somewhere in the brain area. Well, like at Ukrainian headquarters, at television studios, to eliminate important politicians and military personnel. In general, do something that has never been done before. In extreme cases, on bridges and the power grid. In general, fight with the involvement of the brain and testicles
          4. -8
            February 5 2024
            Quote from: dmi.pris1
            We won’t talk about nuclear weapons - this is a horror story aimed at ordinary people, here and there. In reality, this is not applicable. And everyone understands this

            But in vain. This is a very real topic.
            1. Nuclear weapons are the guarantor of our sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
            2. They will definitely use it if NATO troops trample onto our territory. (in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated June 02.06.2020, 355 No. 19 “Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence” in paragraph XNUMX it says:
            19. The conditions that determine the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation are:
            a) the receipt of reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;
            b) the use by the enemy of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction in the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;
            c) the enemy's influence on critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the disabling of which will lead to the disruption of the response actions of the nuclear forces;
            d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is jeopardized.

            And what you are telling us is the “wet dreams” of NATO strategists to quietly destroy Russia using conventional MBTs by “biting it from all sides” and thereby causing a rebellion among Russians dissatisfied with the authorities’ indecisiveness in using “extreme measures.” The essence is the "Anaconda Loop" in action. Plus - the Trojan horse of the fifth column.
            And you all think that no one will press the “button” and democracy will defeat the tyranny of the bloody GeBni...
            MRAK!
            1. +1
              February 5 2024
              Who wants to occupy Russia at the moment. There are such idiots. And many Europeans want to see their cities destroyed.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
          5. -5
            February 5 2024
            Quote from: dmi.pris1
            I personally don’t see any prerequisites for acceleration...

            Here Putin recently announced the importance of UAVs, although the problem is already a year old. Maybe he doesn’t see a threat in delaying the SVO? Mishustin stated that there would be no transfer of the economy to a war footing, as it was unnecessary. What kind of world do they even live in? Strelkov was right: “with this government we cannot win the war.”
            It's time to raise the topic of bridges and logistics hubs again. And nuclear escalation would not hurt, but not in words, but in deeds - tests.
          6. +2
            February 5 2024
            It took 10 years to understand how it would all end. Analysts in the General Staff sit better than on sofas, but the high authorities don’t care about them. We might as well say, how can we speed up the development of the auto industry when China has taken over everything?
        2. 0
          February 6 2024
          This is clear to everyone, except for the inadequate leadership
    2. +10
      February 5 2024
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      How will we respond and what losses will these bombs cause to our army... that is the question... the Americans are raising the stakes again.

      And you won’t shoot it down, even if you find it on approach. They seem to have written for the return of anti-aircraft guns for UAVs, but here, for its speed, projectiles with controlled detonation will be needed to hit at least with fragments on approach...
      And you can’t destroy them during delivery - I think they can be imported in regular trucks.
      In short, it’s really just another gamble. am
      1. -18
        February 5 2024
        Quote: Starover_Z
        And you won’t shoot it down, even if you find it on approach

        Don't panic ahead of time. This “new” prodigy, assembled from old materials, has more vulnerabilities than a conventional MLRS.
        Firstly, the ballistic trajectory at the initial and mid-flight phase, which will allow the Zoo's counter-battery systems to accurately calculate the launch site.
        Secondly, GPS guidance at the final site. It is very doubtful that GPS in the front line area works normally.
        Thirdly, the average standard for all air defense missiles is the ability to destroy a target with maneuvering up to 8g. It is very doubtful that with such wings the GLSDB can maneuver with an overload of more than 2g, and the speed is clearly subsonic. Therefore, the goal is quite easy.
        1. +24
          February 5 2024
          The zoo sees the launch of a rocket or rs at 40 km. And here is 150. And the missile is noise-proof. So you won’t throw hats. The scalp over there is also subsonic..
          1. +4
            February 5 2024
            40? I think you really flattered the zoo.
            And so - for shells it should be a regular target, of course, but where are there so many of these shells?
        2. -9
          February 5 2024
          Quote: Vita VKO
          Therefore, the goal is quite easy.
          The target is difficult because of its high survivability, low ESR (about 0 sq.m), the difficulty of suppressing the guidance system (GPS) and target designation - from the NATO military institute.
          But you are on the right path to finding the weak points of this system. Therefore, with your permission, a couple of thoughts on how to counteract it.
          1. Impact on the MLRS launcher with its headshot data input equipment (bomb guidance control system). This can be done with our latest electronic warfare systems.
          2. Press the data transmission line onto the bomb's seeker, influencing the satellite. But this is fraught with great complications with the “master” of the artificial satellite.
          3. Using EMP, burn all the electronics in the head of the bomb, and, if possible, on the MLRS launcher.
          4. Identification and suppression of launcher positions by fire means before the product is launched. Preferably with volume detonating ammunition...
          5. Timely detect and shoot down a product in flight before it hits the target. This task is within the capabilities of TOR-M2.
        3. 0
          February 5 2024
          Quote: Vita VKO
          . This “new” prodigy, assembled from old materials, has more vulnerabilities than a conventional MLRS.

          Of course more) They themselves will not all work, without opposition. It’s just that they can be produced in hundreds of thousands. And then you won’t care about the current opposition.
      2. 0
        February 7 2024
        Quote: Starover_Z
        And you won’t shoot it down, even if you find it on approach.

        Why?
    3. +5
      February 5 2024
      They will express protest and regret. They will move the red lines. They are not capable of more, they are afraid of offending their partners.
      1. +5
        February 5 2024
        Since we screwed up with the red lines and they turned into green, they will be taken out of brackets. For some reason, Putin’s earlier words: “if a fight is inevitable, you must strike first” does not work for us.
        1. +4
          February 5 2024
          Quote: SKVichyakow
          For some reason, Putin’s earlier words: “if a fight is inevitable, you must strike first” does not work for us.

          We are also not ready to kill terrorists in the toilet, at most a case has been opened
        2. 0
          February 5 2024
          And this is how you look at it. We were the first to hit, but the blow was not a knockout, unfortunately.
    4. -5
      February 5 2024
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      How will we respond and what losses will these bombs cause to our army... that is the question...The Americans are raising rates again.
      It looks like the stakes will be raised higher and higher, especially before the elections in Russia. What will happen as a result? Large losses of personnel and civilians. What should Russia do in response? Don't know . Or rather, I know. Use tactical nuclear weapons in response. In bunkers with the military-political leadership of Judeo-Ukraine. Give modern weapons to some Houthis, sowing. Kreuts, Iranians. But it won't be like that.
    5. -14
      February 5 2024
      How to answer?

      Are we shooting down chimeras? We shoot it down. This means we will shoot down these bombs too. Second: We have Umpk - we have it. There are missiles from MLRS - yes. We take the engine compartment of the projectile. We take the UMPC with a 100 kg bomb. We take a rope that was used to tie a cow in the pasture in the summer. We tie it all together and launch it with fart steam. The calculation is for 300 km, so that from our territory it can fly to Kyiv, to the American embassy. Then we launch it four times a day in response to their launches.
      1. +1
        February 5 2024
        Quote: Alexey Lantukh
        How to answer?

        Are we shooting down chimeras? We shoot it down. So we will shoot down these bombs too...
        The only tangible answer is destroy M142 and M270 launchers, preferably together with the calculation...
        But the reality is that after 2 years, the SVO and Khimars PU are still alive and active.
        What is missing ?? - intelligence data on the location of Khimars launchers?, weapons with high (very high) accuracy?
        These are already questions for the Russian Defense Ministry...
      2. 0
        February 6 2024
        - 9

        I would like to understand the logic of the downvotes. Okay, it's a rope... people have no sense of humor. Otherwise, purely technically, it is quite possible to create a system like the “Americans” have. We already have the details of such a system. The question is expediency. Sorry about the American embassy? So, we need to warn foreigners in advance that we do not guarantee their safety. Let them get out. And of course it needs to be launched against military targets and infrastructure facilities, for example the Kyiv bridges. Why 4 times? Just to keep their air defense and power in suspense. To feel the delights of life under fire.
  2. +6
    February 5 2024
    American improvisation in the Russian style will be quite effective
    Another headache.... Trouble.
  3. +1
    February 5 2024
    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.
    . In general, they reprinted the advertising booklet and... time will tell what and how.
    1. AUL
      +4
      February 5 2024
      Quote: rocket757
      . In general, they reprinted the advertising booklet and

      And this is the second time. There was a post just the day before yesterday about this system. Even the illustrations are the same!
      1. -1
        February 5 2024
        So advertising is the engine of trade...
        Then, when this prodigy seems not to be such a prodigy, they will begin to blame the cross-armed APU students, again and again.
      2. 0
        February 5 2024
        Quote from AUL
        Quote: rocket757
        . In general, they reprinted the advertising booklet and

        And this is the second time. There was a post just the day before yesterday about this system. Even the illustrations are the same!

        What can you do? -- Crisis of the genre! (Nobody writes to the Colonel!!!) request
        You, too, are not much of a “writer” (there are few truly violent ones!), so there are no leaders (writers). There are only “readers” and “critics” left. Yes
        1. AUL
          +5
          February 5 2024
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          You're not much of a peeper either.

          Well, I can only write about where I feel competent enough. Or sometimes make fun of obviously stupid posts written in pursuit of epaulettes, or regular bots. And, unfortunately, there are more of them than we would like. And being a plug for everyone and interfering everywhere with your not-so-clever statement (as some mikhan-vitali characters act) is somehow not respectable! laughing
          1. -2
            February 5 2024
            Quote from AUL
            to go everywhere with your not-so-clever statement... somehow it’s not respectable!

            Alexander Yurievich! And you write about where you are “in the know,” the site will become more and more diverse. And sometimes it’s really hard (because of what you have). You can simply comment on an article from some source, as some authors do on the site. Everything will be more fun.
            Yours faithfully, hi
  4. +18
    February 5 2024
    Zelensky acts, not waits... It was not in Kyiv that they waited, it was waited in Moscow.

    At first, the Ukrainian issue could have been resolved bloodlessly in 2014 by returning the legally elected Yanukovych to power and creating a pro-Russian team for him.

    The second moment was in the spring of 2022, when the supply of Western weapons did not begin and the matter could still be solved by the limited rapid mobilization that Girkin was talking about.

    And now for sure... we've waited.
    1. -9
      February 5 2024
      If only... then grandma would be grandpa.
    2. +2
      February 5 2024
      At first, the Ukrainian issue could have been resolved bloodlessly in 2014 by returning the legally elected Yanukovych to power and creating a pro-Russian team for him.

      How could he be returned if no one even needed him in Donbass?:((
      1. 0
        February 5 2024
        Quote from solar
        How could he be returned if no one even needed him in the Donbass?:

        And how was he legally elected by the whole of Ukraine, if he “was no one...”?, and return it in the same way, because it is useful for Russia. Return it and ram it down their throats.... just like all developed countries have been doing for a long time, if they need anything.
        1. +1
          February 5 2024
          They couldn’t even get it to Donbass, let alone the whole of Ukraine. What did you find useful in it?
          1. 0
            February 5 2024
            Quote from solar
            They couldn’t even get it to Donbass, let alone the whole of Ukraine. What did you find useful in it?
            And hitting the head with a howitzer - do you think that it turned out to be more useful?

            And why “in it”? Useful for Russia and for Donbass - this is completely different. The benefit is not in Yanukovych himself, but in the fact that Yanukovych was the legitimate president of Ukraine until 2015. Or do you think that Euromaidan and the coup d’etat were more useful for Donbass? If the miners of Donbass, who could have smashed this Maidan to pieces, did nothing, it would be more useful for them to tolerate Yanukovych. And it would be more useful for Russia and a million times cheaper to make him their protege. To do this, it’s true, politicians need to have a head on their shoulders..... If there is an ass on their shoulders, then in general everything is harmful, no matter what.
            1. 0
              February 5 2024
              How legitimate is he if he wasn’t even in Donbass? And where did you get the idea that he would be useful to Russia?
    3. 0
      February 5 2024
      And this is not what you can expect if you fight like this. All Bluchers and Kerenskys, not a single Zhukov...
  5. +8
    February 5 2024
    Why doubt whether it will fly or not? It has been tested for a long time, since they were going to send it back in the fall. Then out of the blue, as usual... We start rushing when they are already hitting us.
  6. fiv
    +6
    February 5 2024
    It seems that, compared with the USSR, the Russian Federation has lost the ability to cause trouble for its enemies in various places around the world. And enemies can freely focus on their goals and projects.
  7. Des
    +20
    February 5 2024
    And articles from a respected VO author: "...Su-24, which is very easy to detect and which is quite realistic to be shot down by Russian air defense on the approach to the launch line."
    How many Ukrainian Su-24s did our air defense shoot down “on the way to the launch line”?
    The GLSDB product is launched by launchers of the M142 and M270 systems. How many launchers did we track and destroy?
    So far, it turns out that the Americans have found a low-cost, high-precision and
    long-range solution for replenishing ammunition.
    1. -1
      February 5 2024
      Quote: Des
      How many launchers did we track and destroy?

      How many Tochka-U launchers have we destroyed, that’s where you can start the question
  8. +10
    February 5 2024
    In Kyiv they waited for the coveted bomb

    and we are in trouble! am
  9. BAI
    +7
    February 5 2024
    Since they promise to deliver it, it means it’s already in Ukraine
  10. -3
    February 5 2024
    Victoria Nuland knows how to ruin the mood by presenting news about the next cookies for the bad guys. But I don’t recognize our audience, as it was not a unique warhead product in terms of range and weight, but simply a cheaper one, that caused a wave of despondency. The idea is as old as the rocket world with an old engine to increase the range (A4 to A4b 1944)
    Let’s not forget that they have already restarted their military-industrial complex and millions of 155 mm shells will be delivered in 2024.
  11. +10
    February 5 2024
    While conventional MLRS missiles fly as they are supposed to, that is, along a ballistic trajectory

    MLRS missiles flew a ballistic trajectory until June 2009, when the US retired the M26 missile from service.
    A ballistic trajectory is the trajectory of an aircraft, an aerial bomb, or a missile in the absence of thrust, control forces and moments, and aerodynamic lift.
    GMLRS missiles starting from the M30 have an inertial guidance system and are controlled in flight by four rudders located in the nose. That is, during flight there are control forces and moments. Such a trajectory is no longer ballistic.
    1. -10
      February 5 2024
      This is a completely ballistic trajectory, only the Iskander flies in a straight line. Otherwise, we can say that only hailstones fly along a ballistic trajectory, but some ancient R-5 does not, since there was a correction system
      1. +3
        February 5 2024
        This is a completely ballistic trajectory

        1. -10
          February 5 2024
          What trajectory does Krasnopol fly? What is this word in science and technology?
          1. +4
            February 5 2024
            What trajectory does Krasnopol fly?

            And "Krasnopol" flies along a ballistic trajectory until the booster engine is turned on and the gyroscope is unlocked. This is approximately the top point of the trajectory.
            1. -7
              February 5 2024
              Well, that’s all, it doesn’t fly along a ballistic trajectory. The trajectory is from beginning to end, either ballistic or not, it flies in a zigzag
              1. +4
                February 5 2024
                The trajectory is from beginning to end, either ballistic or not

                You are wrong. A trajectory is a continuous spatial line that is described by the center of mass of a ballistic missile and its warhead as it moves in space. During the active phase of the flight, when the engines are running and motion control is carried out, which includes control of the motion of the center of mass and control of motion around the center of mass, the trajectory is not ballistic.
                1. -5
                  February 5 2024
                  But if there is an active area, it means it is not ballistic. You wrote it yourself. And the Hemarsa rocket must be flying not in a parabola, but along some other line, right?
      2. +4
        February 5 2024
        Only hailstones fly along a ballistic trajectory, but some ancient R-5 does not, since there was a correction system

        The ancient R-5 flies along a ballistic trajectory only on the passive section of this very trajectory.
        1. -6
          February 5 2024
          And on the active part of the trajectory in a straight line? Well, since there is an active section, it means it’s not ballistic! Ballistic, it’s apparently a V-2, but it’s also not accurate, at first it flies in a straight line, which means it’s not ballistic
          1. +5
            February 5 2024
            And on the active part of the trajectory in a straight line?

            Rockets don't fly in a straight line.
            In the active part of the trajectory (AUT), the rocket makes an active controlled flight with a working rocket propulsion system.
            During the passive section of the trajectory (PUT), the warhead performs passive (ballistic, uncontrolled, free) flight.
            1. -8
              February 5 2024
              How can they not fly? It starts vertically, first upward in a straight line. Everything, not ballistic. In addition, the V-2 had gas-dynamic rudders. So ballistic missiles are only MLRS. Tochka-U, for example, steered the rudders, which means it’s not ballistic
              1. +3
                February 5 2024
                The rocket launches vertically in order to overcome the dense layers of the atmosphere along the shortest path and minimize energy consumption. You can also launch along a flat trajectory, but then the range will decrease.
                Whether a ballistic trajectory is ballistic or not is determined not by direction, but by the presence of control influences.
                Tochka-U is controlled throughout the entire flight path and has an inseparable warhead. Therefore, Tochka-U is not a ballistic missile.
                1. -4
                  February 5 2024
                  Are you giving yourself advantages from two accounts?
                  Quote: Dekabrist
                  Whether a ballistic trajectory is ballistic or not is determined not by direction, but by the presence of control influences.

                  Then name some kind of ballistic missile, otherwise now, according to your terminology, it will turn out that they have long remained only in MLRS, although no one has ever called them ballistic before you
                  1. +2
                    February 5 2024
                    Are you giving yourself advantages from two accounts?

                    Yeah, and you have three minuses.
                    You really tired me. Download some textbook from the Internet, for example, Missile Ballistics, A. A. Lebedev, N. F. Gerasyuta.
                    Everything is described there in a fairly accessible form (a scan of the page is attached). Maybe this will help you somehow.
                    1. -4
                      February 6 2024
                      Quote: Dekabrist
                      Yeah, and you have three minuses.

                      I noticed
                      So call some ballistic missile according to your original terminology, tired inventor of new terms
                      1. +1
                        February 6 2024
                        I noticed

                        I doubt. VLADIMIR VYSOTSKY “SONG ABOUT THE TRANSMITTATION OF SOULS.” Third verse. All I can do.
                      2. -3
                        February 6 2024
                        In general, you are well versed in Soviet films and songs, but somehow not so much in rockets
                      3. +1
                        February 6 2024
                        If we proceed from the theory of V. O. Klyuchevsky, you are an exceptionally rich person.
                      4. -1
                        February 7 2024
                        Movies - yes
                        Songs - yes
                        Literature - yes
                        No missiles
                        You still need to refer to some picture, immediately amaze me with your cultural level and I will definitely be frightened and forget where the conversation began
                      5. +1
                        February 7 2024
                        I'll definitely be scared and forget where the conversation started

                        According to Herbjörge Wassm, you are not in danger of fear at all, because you are a clear confirmation of Gilles Deleuze’s observations.
                    2. +1
                      February 7 2024
                      Quote: Dekabrist
                      Download some textbook from the Internet, for example, Missile Ballistics, A. A. Lebedev, N. F. Gerasyuta.
                      Everything is described there in a fairly accessible form (a scan of the page is attached).

                      Great book!
                2. +1
                  February 7 2024
                  Quote: Dekabrist
                  The ochka-U is controlled throughout its entire flight path and has an inseparable warhead. Therefore, Tochka-U is not a ballistic missile.

                  What is her trajectory?
    2. 0
      February 7 2024
      Quote: Dekabrist
      That is, during flight there are control forces and moments. Such a trajectory is no longer ballistic.

      In real conditions, to fly along a ballistic trajectory, a missile must be controlled.
  12. +10
    February 5 2024
    Is this enough for an “asymmetric response”?

    1. +2
      February 5 2024
      This is enough to capture Poland and Germany. To enter Lisbon we need twice as much.
    2. +3
      February 5 2024
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      Is this enough for an “asymmetric response”?

  13. -1
    February 5 2024
    Well what can I say? Americans, Swedes... and against us with the hands of Bandera. In reality, you can drag them in quickly if “Every Houthi has a Mosquito,” and a few whims from Rambov may well train the Houthis to cut fiber optic cables, blow up gas and other wires, etc. And Houthi unidentified drones may well attack a couple of power plants near the Swedes from international waters in the English Channel
  14. -6
    February 5 2024
    The way out is to make every effort to destroy the air defense of Ukraine to achieve an overwhelming advantage in the air and strengthen all types of intelligence collection. And those who chose the profession of defending their homeland learned to do this. They complain that there are not enough officers at the front, but walking down the street I see that there are quite a few of them in the rear and they are not eager to join the Northern Military District.
    1. +6
      February 5 2024
      Why rush there when goals and results are blurred? In Kyiv, discos, Euro-bourgeois go to terrorists as if they were going to their own home, money for transit is regularly transferred to terrorists.....
  15. 0
    February 5 2024
    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 1 million dollars, one GMLRS projectile is 168 thousand dollars.


    remember the “story” around the Antonovsky Bridge? - pulled up the S-400 to close the bridge from the highmars...
    and now what to do?
    Of course, you can boast about the S-300, S-400, S-500 now, but life does not stand still and “cheap” air defense systems that work with “cheap” ones - drones, bombs, etc. are required.
    but they are not
    1. +2
      February 5 2024
      "cheap" air defense systems are required that work with "cheap" ones - drones, bombs, etc.
      but they are not

      Who is interested in cheap funds in Moscow Region?
      The more expensive the better. I have no idea what this is connected with. Because if you have a concept, then you can satisfy under the article of discredit.
      1. -5
        February 5 2024
        Quote: Sergey_Bely
        Because if you have a concept, then you can satisfy under the article of discredit.

        Who needs “discreditors” like you?
        It seems to me that you are just...a buffoon. Because you don’t distinguish between “consumer” and “producer”!
        MO has nothing to do with the “high cost” or the cheapness of funds, because these funds go to the manufacturer for the products produced. The Moscow Region has one dilemma: buy more cheap ones or still buy good ones (but expensive ones) for reliability?
        And for me, as a “consumer”, I wonder how much a torpedo costs. The main thing for me is that it aims and works normally, preferably at the limit of the detection range of the adversary. And I’m absolutely not interested in whether it will be cheap or expensive. I'm interested in destroying the enemy and staying alive myself. And, “how much is it weighed in grams?” - This is of interest to production economists, as well as to managers of the military-industrial complex.
        I.V. Stalin (under socialism) did not consider how much it would cost. That's why we won. And now (under capitalism) managers and businessmen think (and I’ll take advantage of this and send it to my offshores!), that’s why we have what we have!
        1. -2
          February 5 2024
          “MO has nothing to do with the “high cost” or the cheapness of funds, because these funds go to the manufacturer for the products produced.” - this is how the Moscow Region itself chooses this “manufacturer”. If he doesn't choose you, you won't get a penny. But if you find a “consensus” and can “interest” the decision makers, you can make good money.
          1. -1
            February 5 2024
            Quote: Ivan F
            The MO itself chooses the “manufacturer”.

            Notice! Selects by a commission based on the best performance characteristics, in accordance with the technical specifications and at the lowest price per unit.
            The exception is an exclusive or monopolist.
            So, you don’t “talk” much here, because at the VTK you need to justify your decision.
            But.
            1. -1
              February 7 2024
              “So, there’s not a lot of talk here, because at the VTK you need to justify your decision.” - however, you are either naive or .... Go through the criminal cases of Pozhidaev - Boruvkov - Kalitin, or A. Tulupov. You clearly live in a world of pink ponies. Or do you still live on branches in the jungle with Mowgli? Return to reality, otherwise you will remain in the family of pseudopods
              1. 0
                February 7 2024
                Quote: Ivan F
                Go through the criminal cases of Pozhidaev - Boruvkov - Kalitin, or A. Tulupov.
                I followed the advice and walked around.
                1. All the persons you have indicated belong to the food service (rear services) and are allowed to participate in procurement for the needs of the RF Ministry of Defense.
                a) A. Pozhidaev - purchased cooking pots and canteen-kitchen equipment for the army at inflated prices;
                b) A. Boruvkov - exceeded his official authority, for which he received bribes. Also the logistics service of the Moscow Region.
                c) A. Berezhnov - headed the food service department of the Moscow Region.
                And all of them were bribed and given bribes by businessman A. Kalitin, a grain merchant protected by the capital authorities.
                Question: where is the MILITARY EQUIPMENT and weapons? Where, I ask, is the MILITARY-TECHNICAL COMMISSION, which reviews and approves the results of competitions???
                Quote: Ivan F
                You clearly live in a world of pink ponies.

                Actually, I live on the border with a country that is an active member of the NATO bloc. Unlike you, dear friend, I know exactly what I will do if the DB starts, although due to my age I have been removed from the military register.
                Quote: Ivan F
                Or do you still live on branches in the jungle with Mowgli?
                But not with banderlogs, which, apparently, you are one of...
                hi
  16. -4
    February 5 2024
    It’s another matter when, in addition to the control units, an engine from a decommissioned rocket is attached to the bomb.
    This is basically unreliable, these things will break very often. The whole question is how much it will cost. Warheads from decommissioned old shells cost nothing; only the work of disassembling the shells and assembling new ammunition has a price. This can be outsourced somewhere far away from your own country; there are countless poor people on the planet who are willing to risk their necks for food.
    So it’s all about the cost of the control unit and the rest of the system - the wings, the drive... If NATO can do all this cheaply, we have big, simply huge problems. Even though we can try too... but Russia doesn’t produce electronic components. So it won't be cheap at all.
    As I have written many times, anti-drone defense systems based on shrapnel ammunition are urgently needed, even the day before yesterday. Better yet, we need a win. It hasn't started yet.
  17. +4
    February 5 2024
    We became experimental rabbits for NATO, bingo....
  18. +1
    February 5 2024
    This is the one (GBU-39) that Israel constantly uses. People in Syria should be familiar with it. An interesting overview of its varieties, that is, different guidance systems.
  19. -1
    February 5 2024
    Can anyone explain that MLRS missiles rotate along their axis for stable and accurate flight. How the transition from rotation to planning is accomplished.
    1. +1
      February 5 2024
      After gaining altitude and speed, the rotating part is reset and control is transferred to the rudders of the bomb itself, after which the wings are opened.
      1. -1
        February 7 2024
        the bomb does not have its own engines, as I understand it, during the transition from rotation to gliding, momentum is lost, speed and therefore agility
        1. 0
          February 7 2024
          Flight ranges are based on these factors.
          Rotation, in itself, also acts to reduce range, and much more so than the transition from rotation to linear flight.
  20. +3
    February 5 2024
    Judging by the English Wikipedia, GLSDB is capable of working against moving targets. Probably with different types of SDB.
    In a 2017 demonstration, the GLSDB hit a moving target at a distance of 100 km (62 mi). The SDB and rocket motor separated at altitude, and the bomb used a semi-active laser homing (SAL) to track and engage its target. [31] Tests in 2019 increased this range to 130 km (81 mi) against targets at sea. [11] The laser-guided SDB has previously been successfully tested using targets moving at 50 mph (80 km/h). [32]

    The glider will be more difficult to intercept because it can be programmed to approach a target from any direction and at different angles, Saab said. [17] Unlike conventional artillery, which follows a predictable path from launch to destination, the GLSDB's wings and navigation capabilities allow it to evade and outflank obstacles and air defenses, even while approaching a target from the rear. [46] [12] Additionally, since the GLSDB is a glider, it has weak IR signature, making it a poor target for IR-guided missiles such as MANPADS. [47]

    They also write that after deliveries to Ukraine, GLSDB will be supplied to Taiwan (and I would add, most likely to Poland, since the Poles purchase a large number of launchers).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb
  21. +3
    February 5 2024
    First the author writes
    GLSDB has a range of about 150 km

    And then, suddenly,

    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.

    It turns out that the bomb is with UMPC, flying at 50-65 km. has a range greater than GLSDB with its 150 km.
  22. 0
    February 5 2024
    Nomadic crews of the Hvimars!
  23. 0
    February 6 2024
    These jet-launched bombs with the ability to plan and correct are a serious challenge for both our army and our defense industry.
  24. 0
    February 6 2024
    Roman, a rare case when I sincerely praise an article! Interesting, easy to read. Liked. Request:
    ...the guidance system not only ensures accuracy accurate to within three feet

    Always convert enemy units of measurement into SI units that we understand.

    Thank you. Good luck with your new articles!
  25. 0
    February 11 2024
    So that's quite a good thing. But its speed will obviously be lower, and its maneuver will be limited. It's easier to shoot down. Can be purchased in large quantities as it is cheaper
  26. 0
    February 11 2024
    Another thing for the little pigs to terrorize the civilian population. Well, as I understand it, 500 km+ will have to be pushed back
  27. 0
    February 13 2024
    What does the author mean by the phrase “adds attractiveness” if something like this falls from him within 3 feet it will be attractive?
  28. 0
    February 14 2024
    Next in line are 1.JASSM--ER(1000km), There is no answer, and there won’t be one, then you get a Tomahawk (2500km), and even here there is no answer - meet a thousand or two Minutemen (9000km) Oh, you’re keeping quiet, don’t Did they catch you behind the red lines you moved?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"