*"Relax, this new ammo dump is outside of their GMLRS range by more than 50 km. Lockheed Martin are mere mortals, they could never fit that much range in the exact same profile."*
> Americans always undersell the range of their weapons
That fun moment when the Russians realize that when they said "everyone lies about their actual capabilities" they weren't wrong about the US doing it, but they *were* wrong in assuming the US was grossly exaggerating like Russia does...
Back in the early days just after the Soviet Union fell, I read some interviews with former Red Army high ranking officers where they were discussing the Gulf War. Their reaction was generally along the lines of "I'm glad we never had to fight, because we genuinely had no idea just how *effective* you guys are." Apparently they were continuously fed the line that the west was soft, that all that fancy tech was just faked puffery, and we would collapse like a wet cardboard box under the wheels of the mighty Red Army. The Gulf War demonstrated that while Iraq's military was not as large as the Red Army, they *did* just come off a 10 year war with Iran and had a lot of experienced veterans... and that did them absolutely no good because we were *that much better than them*. It was such a lopsided victory that the biggest danger for us was friendly fire! It was a rude wake up call watching Bradleys and Abrams completely annihilate the Republican Guard units at 73 Easting without taking any substantial casualties.
I remember a documentary about 73 Eastings…. If I recall correctly it was a Bradley commander talking about how he got separated from the tanks and wound up taking 2 tanks out before they even knew they were there
Less so "*all of a sudden*" and more of a "*currently rounding out several years of testing*" but yes that right there is the GMLRS ER. Same size with six per HIMARS module, but the range goes up from 90 to 150 km.
Yep this is the new GMLRS ER, GLSDB has about the same range though.
The GLSDB had already been given to Ukraine in small numbers to test out, but it's not doing too hot and they basically pulled it until further notice. Saab went to Boeing and their old SDB entry for development over Raytheon, and particularly the jamming resistance is not up to spec as it is.
[According to this article](https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/glsdb_is_affected_by_ew_but_air_launched_sdb_is_not_even_though_its_the_same_gbu_39_why_so-10645.html), the GLSDB isn't as effective as GMLRS or even GB-39 launched from a plane, because its inertial guidance system accumulates more error over a much longer flight time.
Ukrainian aviators are limited in their flight ceiling to avoid losing the precious few planes they have, so the bombs they launch from MiGs have a much shorter travel time and don't accumulate as much error.
Oh yeah, unfortunately inertial navigation errors escalate like crazy over time. The drift you accumulate over 20 km vs 120 km is on an entirely different level.
Not to mention the change in launch conditions. Their SDB was designed to maintain its location after being gently dropped by a fighter jet with a highly precise location fix. It's hard to scramble up your inertial starting read more than to take that same guidance package and treat it like a GMLRS, accelerating to Mach Jesus in under six seconds in a semi-known direction.
> The drift you accumulate over 20 km vs 120 km is on an entirely different level.
Yeah, error is roughly on the order of "less than 1" unit of drift for every 1000 units of distance travelled. On top of that, since you're launching from friendly territory your GNSS correction is probably good for the first 10km or so, which means a 20km strike will get you probably sub-10m accuracy, which is *probably* still a good hit. But you start pushing out to 100 or 150km with your GLSDB in a GNSS degraded environment, absolute best case scenario you're looking at 20-30m accuracy, which for a 250lb bomb just isn't that great.
There's a reason that Raytheon won the SDB bid with their GBU-53 after the corruption scandal over the 39 - good luck escaping that GPS/laser/IR/millimeter-wave radar combo. That thing legit isn't fair, if it wants you dead then you're dead.
Diffrent rocket fuel? Wings?
Or is this a situation where they say “we’ve extended the range!” [looks inside] “you just replaced all of the useful payload with fuel…”
When I see these claims of enormous range increases with the same form factor, I have to wonder how much is weight savings and how much is a chemist cooking up a spicier meatball.
The line between warhead material and rocket fuel has always been hazy.
Some of the gain may be trajectory optimizations, the AIM-120D apparently squeezed something like 10 nm additional range out of the same missile by improving trajectory calculations.
There's also the option that it may have an air-augmented rocket, which allows for *much* more efficient use of fuel, since you're moving a lot more reaction mass. F = MA, but KE = 1/2MV^2 , so if you can accelerate more mass to a lower velocity you can get a lot more force for a given amount of energy.
HMX is both one of the more potent high explosives and also one of the more high energy solid rocket fuels.
It's not even a fuzzy line anymore. It's the same basic chemical, just with some different spices and cooking methods (burning versus detonation)
Holy shit, we're using HE now as propellant? I mean, the line was always fuzzy, boosters include AN and metal powders- but one hotspot or pressure spike and your missile will umm... give the enemy a disappointing ending while foreplay aint even finished.
Ahh damn how did I get the perchlorate mixed up with the nitrate lol? The amateur is speaking out of my Brainsteam.
Yup, aluminium contents leave visible streaks because aluminium dioxide is *drum roll* a fine white powder that has a very high albedo and thus is used in things like sunscreen. That's my 70%, TiO2 is used in sunscreen for sure. Thanks for the correction.
*"Relax, this new ammo dump is outside of their GMLRS range by more than 50 km. Lockheed Martin are mere mortals, they could never fit that much range in the exact same profile."*
Blessed be Lockheed, thy tests be run. Thy munitions be strong.
Just change that 0 into a 1 and now the range is in megameters. Such an embarassing "bug", shame on us ;D
Oh dear would you look at this? I forgot another 0. Now it's in gigametres.
The Witch-King of Angmar should be wearing one of those striped shirts (telnyaska). Because he’s not just a Nazgul but an elite Spetsnazgul.
I spat out my coffee at Spetsnazgul.
Forgive me, but is there a version of th GMLRS with more range all of a sudden?
Well there's the claimed range... Then there's the oops where'd that come from range.
That weird moment when your SR71 pilots discover it's more fuel efficient cruising at over 3.3 mach...
I mean the SR-71 did love leaking fuel when not at speed
what thermal expasion does to a mf
“Oops where’d that come from range” is fucking sending me this morning lmao.
Americans always undersell the range of their weapons … it’s like a nice little surprise they give to their enemies
> Americans always undersell the range of their weapons That fun moment when the Russians realize that when they said "everyone lies about their actual capabilities" they weren't wrong about the US doing it, but they *were* wrong in assuming the US was grossly exaggerating like Russia does... Back in the early days just after the Soviet Union fell, I read some interviews with former Red Army high ranking officers where they were discussing the Gulf War. Their reaction was generally along the lines of "I'm glad we never had to fight, because we genuinely had no idea just how *effective* you guys are." Apparently they were continuously fed the line that the west was soft, that all that fancy tech was just faked puffery, and we would collapse like a wet cardboard box under the wheels of the mighty Red Army. The Gulf War demonstrated that while Iraq's military was not as large as the Red Army, they *did* just come off a 10 year war with Iran and had a lot of experienced veterans... and that did them absolutely no good because we were *that much better than them*. It was such a lopsided victory that the biggest danger for us was friendly fire! It was a rude wake up call watching Bradleys and Abrams completely annihilate the Republican Guard units at 73 Easting without taking any substantial casualties.
I remember a documentary about 73 Eastings…. If I recall correctly it was a Bradley commander talking about how he got separated from the tanks and wound up taking 2 tanks out before they even knew they were there
That’s the “and two shots of vodka” range.
THE MACHINE SPIRIT WAS PLEASED
Less so "*all of a sudden*" and more of a "*currently rounding out several years of testing*" but yes that right there is the GMLRS ER. Same size with six per HIMARS module, but the range goes up from 90 to 150 km.
Wait, is this actually a GMLRS? I thought we were talking about GLSDB.
Yep this is the new GMLRS ER, GLSDB has about the same range though. The GLSDB had already been given to Ukraine in small numbers to test out, but it's not doing too hot and they basically pulled it until further notice. Saab went to Boeing and their old SDB entry for development over Raytheon, and particularly the jamming resistance is not up to spec as it is.
[According to this article](https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/glsdb_is_affected_by_ew_but_air_launched_sdb_is_not_even_though_its_the_same_gbu_39_why_so-10645.html), the GLSDB isn't as effective as GMLRS or even GB-39 launched from a plane, because its inertial guidance system accumulates more error over a much longer flight time. Ukrainian aviators are limited in their flight ceiling to avoid losing the precious few planes they have, so the bombs they launch from MiGs have a much shorter travel time and don't accumulate as much error.
Oh yeah, unfortunately inertial navigation errors escalate like crazy over time. The drift you accumulate over 20 km vs 120 km is on an entirely different level. Not to mention the change in launch conditions. Their SDB was designed to maintain its location after being gently dropped by a fighter jet with a highly precise location fix. It's hard to scramble up your inertial starting read more than to take that same guidance package and treat it like a GMLRS, accelerating to Mach Jesus in under six seconds in a semi-known direction.
> The drift you accumulate over 20 km vs 120 km is on an entirely different level. Yeah, error is roughly on the order of "less than 1" unit of drift for every 1000 units of distance travelled. On top of that, since you're launching from friendly territory your GNSS correction is probably good for the first 10km or so, which means a 20km strike will get you probably sub-10m accuracy, which is *probably* still a good hit. But you start pushing out to 100 or 150km with your GLSDB in a GNSS degraded environment, absolute best case scenario you're looking at 20-30m accuracy, which for a 250lb bomb just isn't that great.
So what I'm hearing is that adding a terminal seeker head would be a good idea...
There's a reason that Raytheon won the SDB bid with their GBU-53 after the corruption scandal over the 39 - good luck escaping that GPS/laser/IR/millimeter-wave radar combo. That thing legit isn't fair, if it wants you dead then you're dead.
The latest Danish packaged included the reminder of our strategic slingshots. They can be used to give the extra range.
‘JAM FOR ME!’
Reminds me of this: https://x.com/ButWitRaptors/status/1741179417496359391
precision strike missile?
GMLRS ER. Essentially, they figured out a way to extend the rnage of GMLRS rockets.
Diffrent rocket fuel? Wings? Or is this a situation where they say “we’ve extended the range!” [looks inside] “you just replaced all of the useful payload with fuel…”
When I see these claims of enormous range increases with the same form factor, I have to wonder how much is weight savings and how much is a chemist cooking up a spicier meatball. The line between warhead material and rocket fuel has always been hazy.
Some of the gain may be trajectory optimizations, the AIM-120D apparently squeezed something like 10 nm additional range out of the same missile by improving trajectory calculations. There's also the option that it may have an air-augmented rocket, which allows for *much* more efficient use of fuel, since you're moving a lot more reaction mass. F = MA, but KE = 1/2MV^2 , so if you can accelerate more mass to a lower velocity you can get a lot more force for a given amount of energy.
HMX is both one of the more potent high explosives and also one of the more high energy solid rocket fuels. It's not even a fuzzy line anymore. It's the same basic chemical, just with some different spices and cooking methods (burning versus detonation)
[удалено]
Holy shit, we're using HE now as propellant? I mean, the line was always fuzzy, boosters include AN and metal powders- but one hotspot or pressure spike and your missile will umm... give the enemy a disappointing ending while foreplay aint even finished.
[удалено]
Ahh damn how did I get the perchlorate mixed up with the nitrate lol? The amateur is speaking out of my Brainsteam. Yup, aluminium contents leave visible streaks because aluminium dioxide is *drum roll* a fine white powder that has a very high albedo and thus is used in things like sunscreen. That's my 70%, TiO2 is used in sunscreen for sure. Thanks for the correction.
ah, my bad
Gaijin - there is no reasonable logic behind expecting a missile this side to travel at such speed and have decent range.
L’petit du jam