A Potent Ukrainian Glide-Bomb with very little outlay
Thread Starter
A Potent Ukrainian Glide-Bomb with very little outlay
The cheap and nasty answer to Russia's not-so-cheap and very nasty glide-bombs (see the Economist article described below) is even cheaper and even nastier.(see HEAT and HESH rounds on Youtube) Why? Due to being cheap and made/released in great quantities. They'd be great terror-inducing weapons and simply not able to be defended against (not detectable enroute... just like these Russian glide-bombs aren't, once released). The Ukrainian weapon just requires some hydrogen-fueled balloons to get them aloft in any weather conditions.
You mount a GLONASS targeting device on a HEAT munition (High Explosive anti-tank) or HESH (high explosive squash Head) as currently being utilized on UKRAINE's very successful rotary-powered anti-armour drones - but give it set-in-place glider wings with ailerons and an empennage (tail surface) for steerability/stability. You then attach it to one (or two or three - if weight dictates) cheap as chips meteorological radio-sonde balloons and set it to fly UPWARDS - and they can go as high as 32-35kms (115,000 feet altitude ) before bursting and releasing their payload to glide off to a reasonably proximate Russian City in great numbers (and almost simultaneous delivery). With a glide-ratio of 25:1 (8.5 meter wingspan) they could go as far as 130kms at a speed of around 100km/hr. Admittedly it could be an area-designated weapon but could also be delivered with quite some precision. It arrives out of nowhere and is quite undetectable enroute (just like the Russian glide-bombs). Similar to the NAZI V1 Pulse-Jet propelled glide-bombs, but quite a bit cheaper and simpler to produce in large numbers.
Because the means of their delivery would be quite unobvious, the Russkies could not copy-cat the simple technology. The wings could be wooden or aluminium (or a straight-wing plank with a rounded leading edge) and utilize GLONASS- steered model aircraft control tech. The targeting could simply be a homing to pre-set coordinates - with a barometrically triggered vertical dive from a certain height AGL (which achieves fusing of the round as if it had been gun-fired). There would be no need for deceptive routing. A simply go-to point could be programmed in. The burst Meteorological balloon's release mechanism would be a RAM air turbine propeller in the glider's nose unscrewing the balloon attachment once it was in free-flight and achieving a directional gliding velocity. Radiosondes would not be carried. Each radiosonde costs around $200 and weighs around 7 kgs. So around 3 balloons required for an anti-tank round (53.4lbs/24,2kgs) mounted at the glider's Center of gravity would do the job easily (adequate but less rapid buoyancy for the same altitude gain). A 120mm round for an M1 Abrams' tank weighs 40lbs. Actually delivering it over a range of 130 kms would make it a quite potent weapon (particularly if favourable winds aloft could also be factored into the targeting and launch-points). It's all very much in keeping with the philosophy of using a $750 piece of kit to take out a $10M tank. It's become a protracted war of attritive expenses. The Russians have lost many fighters delivering their glide-bombs from ranges of 65 kms or so at heights of over 30Kft. With some design acumen, I think this could be a table-turner. BAE(UK) should get onto it.
from The Economist: | Cheap and nasty
For now, Ukraine has no answer to it
You mount a GLONASS targeting device on a HEAT munition (High Explosive anti-tank) or HESH (high explosive squash Head) as currently being utilized on UKRAINE's very successful rotary-powered anti-armour drones - but give it set-in-place glider wings with ailerons and an empennage (tail surface) for steerability/stability. You then attach it to one (or two or three - if weight dictates) cheap as chips meteorological radio-sonde balloons and set it to fly UPWARDS - and they can go as high as 32-35kms (115,000 feet altitude ) before bursting and releasing their payload to glide off to a reasonably proximate Russian City in great numbers (and almost simultaneous delivery). With a glide-ratio of 25:1 (8.5 meter wingspan) they could go as far as 130kms at a speed of around 100km/hr. Admittedly it could be an area-designated weapon but could also be delivered with quite some precision. It arrives out of nowhere and is quite undetectable enroute (just like the Russian glide-bombs). Similar to the NAZI V1 Pulse-Jet propelled glide-bombs, but quite a bit cheaper and simpler to produce in large numbers.
Because the means of their delivery would be quite unobvious, the Russkies could not copy-cat the simple technology. The wings could be wooden or aluminium (or a straight-wing plank with a rounded leading edge) and utilize GLONASS- steered model aircraft control tech. The targeting could simply be a homing to pre-set coordinates - with a barometrically triggered vertical dive from a certain height AGL (which achieves fusing of the round as if it had been gun-fired). There would be no need for deceptive routing. A simply go-to point could be programmed in. The burst Meteorological balloon's release mechanism would be a RAM air turbine propeller in the glider's nose unscrewing the balloon attachment once it was in free-flight and achieving a directional gliding velocity. Radiosondes would not be carried. Each radiosonde costs around $200 and weighs around 7 kgs. So around 3 balloons required for an anti-tank round (53.4lbs/24,2kgs) mounted at the glider's Center of gravity would do the job easily (adequate but less rapid buoyancy for the same altitude gain). A 120mm round for an M1 Abrams' tank weighs 40lbs. Actually delivering it over a range of 130 kms would make it a quite potent weapon (particularly if favourable winds aloft could also be factored into the targeting and launch-points). It's all very much in keeping with the philosophy of using a $750 piece of kit to take out a $10M tank. It's become a protracted war of attritive expenses. The Russians have lost many fighters delivering their glide-bombs from ranges of 65 kms or so at heights of over 30Kft. With some design acumen, I think this could be a table-turner. BAE(UK) should get onto it.
from The Economist: | Cheap and nasty
Russia’s ferocious glide-bomb campaign ( see economist.com /ukraine-crisis)
For now, Ukraine has no answer to it
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
you just need to ensure the wind is blowing in the right direction. Welcome to the forums BTW
Thread Starter
The Styro-Bomb Blitzkrieg
The average weather balloon with sufficient lifting force to generate an industry-average two hour time interval to burst-height will ascend at an initial 1000fpm (5m/sec). This climb-rate and 115,000ft burst altitude can be extended by fitting one balloon inside the other and increasing the hydrogen volume (to an extent that can be tolerated by the doubled-up envelope - around double the strength of a single). We speak here of the much cheaper latex balloons used by meteorologists. A single balloon can achieve that average 1000fpm climb-rate with a 4.5kg payload (which normally, in a radio-sonde mode, would include a 1.8kg recovery chute) That climb-rate tapers off exponentially after 70% of height-gain, but the same burst height remains ultimately achievable. If the upper-level winds are generally in the right direction, more ambitious longer-range targets could be reached. Day/night climb-rates differ. Three doubled envelopes (inflated to 1.5 times the usual hydrogen pressure) will achieve the same height with a 35 to 50kg munitions payload. Higher inflation pressures can predicate a burst-height of around 15,000ft higher (i.e. 130,000feet altitude for a doubly-enveloped contraption).
Protection for GPS/GLONASS and radio-control flight surface avionics and the singular lithium-ion battery (against low temperature/pressure of high altitude) can be afforded by encapsulating them within styrofoam shells wrapped in a simple silver-foil survival blanket. Foil blanket would not surround the GPS antenna of course. A shaped light-weight airfoil would greatly increase the glide-range by a factor of two. There would be some scope here for reinforced styrofoam to be the very efficient airfoil surfaces (very surprisingly light-weight and integrally strong). Anybody who has taken delivery of a large object surrounded by internally rib-strengthened styrofoam would no doubt back me up on just how robust (and ultra-light-weight) styrofoam structures can be made. Some of these packagings are almost indestructible. You need to hacksaw them to dispose of that packaging. Styro-foam moulds can be easily constructed and the basic glider mass-produced.
All the very latest weaponry to be seen in prospect on youtube videos are admittedly technological marvels... but are prohibitively expensive - both to develop, deploy, protect, rapidly relocate after use and, in most cases, recover/refuel/re-arm. There is a definite fixation on rotary-powered electric motors being the propulsive mechanism for 99% of cheap battlefield drones. Once the new laser weapons arrive on scene, you can expect the drone fleets to be rapidly decimated by such weapons as the UK's Dragonfire Laser (and its under-development Russian equivalent). Conventional drones will always be needed however - for surveillance and battle-field targeting. The sophisticated expensive non-sacrificial armed drones will also be lost to enemy action much of the time. They are not designed to be lost and the cost of such a loss is an instantly significant effect upon local capability. What is needed for such an attritive war is a mass-produced unsophisticated model aircraft which can be carried aloft from well behind the lines and released to fly undetected (and un-interceptable) to a GPS-nominated medium distance target. It would have a very low radar signature to the point of being almost 100% stealthy. Cheap and mass-produced medium-range weapons such as this Styro-bomb can have both a material and a blitzkrieg psychological effect upon the rear echelons, storage depots and enemy production facilities. So does the ATACMS, but at thousands of times the cost. A Styro-bomb would have the invulnerability afforded by its stealth and silent approach. A THREAT outa Nowhere is a very mind-blowing circumstance to perpetually live with.
Given that Ukraine has an extensive network of agents within Russia, it should also be possible to develop a homer beacon version for precision delivery (even if it needed a built-in offset or an onboard camera for terminal guidance). This would be useful for targeted assassination of individuals located in their domiciles or high value propaganda targets. Modern Stability Augmentation Systems (SAS )are readily adaptable to respond to GPS steering inputs. There are many such SAS and incorporated steerable systems being fitted to light aircraft nowadays. Even a near-miss has a valuable effect upon civilian and production worker morale.
We've seen the highly successful rotary-fan powered steerable remote-controlled drones come into their own on the battlefield over the last few years. Dragonfire and similar systems will soon be decimating them. Even the Predator-style drones will be vulnerable to Dragon-fire interdiction. Many battle-field drones will be being lost to friendly fire. The future of aircraft-carried glide-bombs is "a little up in the air" after around 8 to 10 SU-34 and SU-35 aircraft have been lost to Ukrainian anti-aircraft measures in recent weeks... even though they are high-altitude dropping their FAP glide bomb-loads with fold-out wings from up to 65 kms away from their targets. The advent of F-16's will make that method of delivery even more hazardous. Once you weigh up the cost of mass-production of an ongoing fleet assault of simple balloon-lofted glide-in Styro-bombs, you can see which would be more sustainable for exerting continuing behind-the-front-lines pressure upon enemy troops, production workers and the general populace. Equipping them with Stuka-style paralyzing sirens for their 10 second final diving delivery will have the added effect of paralyzing the Russian war-effort and changing the mindset of the average Russian about the war upon their close neighbour. Styro-bombing is the style of campaign that you could keep up for years ...without breaking the bank and overly relying upon Uncle Sam's Collegiate whimsy and the EU's polka-dotty largesse.
Protection for GPS/GLONASS and radio-control flight surface avionics and the singular lithium-ion battery (against low temperature/pressure of high altitude) can be afforded by encapsulating them within styrofoam shells wrapped in a simple silver-foil survival blanket. Foil blanket would not surround the GPS antenna of course. A shaped light-weight airfoil would greatly increase the glide-range by a factor of two. There would be some scope here for reinforced styrofoam to be the very efficient airfoil surfaces (very surprisingly light-weight and integrally strong). Anybody who has taken delivery of a large object surrounded by internally rib-strengthened styrofoam would no doubt back me up on just how robust (and ultra-light-weight) styrofoam structures can be made. Some of these packagings are almost indestructible. You need to hacksaw them to dispose of that packaging. Styro-foam moulds can be easily constructed and the basic glider mass-produced.
All the very latest weaponry to be seen in prospect on youtube videos are admittedly technological marvels... but are prohibitively expensive - both to develop, deploy, protect, rapidly relocate after use and, in most cases, recover/refuel/re-arm. There is a definite fixation on rotary-powered electric motors being the propulsive mechanism for 99% of cheap battlefield drones. Once the new laser weapons arrive on scene, you can expect the drone fleets to be rapidly decimated by such weapons as the UK's Dragonfire Laser (and its under-development Russian equivalent). Conventional drones will always be needed however - for surveillance and battle-field targeting. The sophisticated expensive non-sacrificial armed drones will also be lost to enemy action much of the time. They are not designed to be lost and the cost of such a loss is an instantly significant effect upon local capability. What is needed for such an attritive war is a mass-produced unsophisticated model aircraft which can be carried aloft from well behind the lines and released to fly undetected (and un-interceptable) to a GPS-nominated medium distance target. It would have a very low radar signature to the point of being almost 100% stealthy. Cheap and mass-produced medium-range weapons such as this Styro-bomb can have both a material and a blitzkrieg psychological effect upon the rear echelons, storage depots and enemy production facilities. So does the ATACMS, but at thousands of times the cost. A Styro-bomb would have the invulnerability afforded by its stealth and silent approach. A THREAT outa Nowhere is a very mind-blowing circumstance to perpetually live with.
Given that Ukraine has an extensive network of agents within Russia, it should also be possible to develop a homer beacon version for precision delivery (even if it needed a built-in offset or an onboard camera for terminal guidance). This would be useful for targeted assassination of individuals located in their domiciles or high value propaganda targets. Modern Stability Augmentation Systems (SAS )are readily adaptable to respond to GPS steering inputs. There are many such SAS and incorporated steerable systems being fitted to light aircraft nowadays. Even a near-miss has a valuable effect upon civilian and production worker morale.
We've seen the highly successful rotary-fan powered steerable remote-controlled drones come into their own on the battlefield over the last few years. Dragonfire and similar systems will soon be decimating them. Even the Predator-style drones will be vulnerable to Dragon-fire interdiction. Many battle-field drones will be being lost to friendly fire. The future of aircraft-carried glide-bombs is "a little up in the air" after around 8 to 10 SU-34 and SU-35 aircraft have been lost to Ukrainian anti-aircraft measures in recent weeks... even though they are high-altitude dropping their FAP glide bomb-loads with fold-out wings from up to 65 kms away from their targets. The advent of F-16's will make that method of delivery even more hazardous. Once you weigh up the cost of mass-production of an ongoing fleet assault of simple balloon-lofted glide-in Styro-bombs, you can see which would be more sustainable for exerting continuing behind-the-front-lines pressure upon enemy troops, production workers and the general populace. Equipping them with Stuka-style paralyzing sirens for their 10 second final diving delivery will have the added effect of paralyzing the Russian war-effort and changing the mindset of the average Russian about the war upon their close neighbour. Styro-bombing is the style of campaign that you could keep up for years ...without breaking the bank and overly relying upon Uncle Sam's Collegiate whimsy and the EU's polka-dotty largesse.
The following users liked this post:
I don't think this is the article in question (it is from last week's Economist) but certainly concerns Ukraine's deep strike drones :-
Ukraine’s drones
The sky’s no limit for Ukraine’s deep-strike programme
With every step, the air thickens with the smell of petrol. Around a corner is the workshop, and the buzz of manufacturing. Inside, lab-coated technicians are busy assembling grey birds under the glow of overhead lights. Young men in T-shirts scuttle about, before packing the drones in boxes for onward delivery. The destination for some of them will be 1,000km away and more—hunting for important targets inside Russia.
Since President Volodymyr Zelensky prioritised the technology, Ukraine has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into long-range drones, capable of searching out and striking distant targets. Half a dozen firms now make them.
The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia. Born out of necessity—the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons—the programme has disrupted much of Russia’s oil and military infrastructure. But the White House is not happy. It is pushing the Ukrainians to stop the strikes.
America’s concerns have varied, from a rise in the oil price to the prospect of an uncontrollable tit-for-tat in which Ukraine could end up the loser. Fears of the latter rose in late March, when Russia inflicted millions of dollars of damage on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The attacks revealed gaps in air defences and vulnerabilities to Russia’s new Kh-69 low-altitude cruise missile. On April 11th such missiles destroyed Ukraine’s Trypilska power station, 40km from Kyiv, though it was in range of the capital’s Patriot air-defence systems.
So far, Ukraine is ignoring American advice to call off the strikes. “Detective”, an intelligence officer responsible for part of the programme, says he has not received instructions to dial down operations. Yes, there has been a switch away from aiming at oil infrastructure in the past week, but it is probably temporary. “Our targets change day to day. We keep the Russians on their toes.”
One long-range-drone producer claims that not every American representative agrees with its policy. His contacts “winked” while they delivered warnings. “They’re privately telling us to keep going.” The producer predicted an expansion of Ukraine’s drone programme in the months to come. “Russia is scorching Ukrainian earth. It’s time we did the same to European Russia.”
Since President Volodymyr Zelensky prioritised the technology, Ukraine has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into long-range drones, capable of searching out and striking distant targets. Half a dozen firms now make them.
The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia. Born out of necessity—the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons—the programme has disrupted much of Russia’s oil and military infrastructure. But the White House is not happy. It is pushing the Ukrainians to stop the strikes.
America’s concerns have varied, from a rise in the oil price to the prospect of an uncontrollable tit-for-tat in which Ukraine could end up the loser. Fears of the latter rose in late March, when Russia inflicted millions of dollars of damage on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The attacks revealed gaps in air defences and vulnerabilities to Russia’s new Kh-69 low-altitude cruise missile. On April 11th such missiles destroyed Ukraine’s Trypilska power station, 40km from Kyiv, though it was in range of the capital’s Patriot air-defence systems.
So far, Ukraine is ignoring American advice to call off the strikes. “Detective”, an intelligence officer responsible for part of the programme, says he has not received instructions to dial down operations. Yes, there has been a switch away from aiming at oil infrastructure in the past week, but it is probably temporary. “Our targets change day to day. We keep the Russians on their toes.”
One long-range-drone producer claims that not every American representative agrees with its policy. His contacts “winked” while they delivered warnings. “They’re privately telling us to keep going.” The producer predicted an expansion of Ukraine’s drone programme in the months to come. “Russia is scorching Ukrainian earth. It’s time we did the same to European Russia.”
Thread Starter
Russia’s ferocious glide-bomb campaign
(https://www.economist.com/europe/202...-bomb-campaign)
For now, Ukraine has no answer to it
For the past year, Russia has been stepping up its use of glide bombs. In recent months both the size of the bombs and the rate at which they are launched have increased sharply. So far they have mainly been used against Ukrainian troops on the front line. They demonstrated their effectiveness in February by bringing to an end Ukraine’s stubborn defence of Avdiivka, a coking town in the east. But they are now also being used to add a new dimension to Russia’s strategic air campaign, supplementing its limited supply of air-launched cruise missiles.The glide bombs start life as mostly Soviet-era general-purpose fab bombs, of which there are huge quantities in Russia’s inventory. Last year, the Russians started adding simple, cheap conversion kits to them: wings that pop out when the bomb is released, and a satellite guidance system based on Russia’s GPS equivalent, GLONASS. A slightly more sophisticated and accurate version, which has the wings integrated in the body of the weapon, laser guidance and an anti-jamming antenna, appeared last month. Two of these struck Kharkiv on March 27th.
Last edited by T28B; 27th Apr 2024 at 21:12. Reason: that photo was not necessary and a bit large
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
For the Ukrainian WinterSports Carnival...
"Since President Volodymyr Zelensky prioritised the technology, Ukraine has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into long-range drones, capable of searching out and striking distant targets. Half a dozen firms now make them.
The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia. Born out of necessity—the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons—the programme has now disrupted much of Russia’s oil and military infrastructure”
A Potent Ukrainian Glide-Bomb with very little outlay
For very little cost overall, such a Balloon-lofted Glider-Borne tank-round munitions project would have a "punch above its weight" effect upon Russian morale. When you talk in terms of quid pro quo, it's not the size of the delivered munition that matters, It's in practical order:
a. the inability to detect and defend against it.
b. Its total unpredictability (no air raid sirens)
c. the minimal resources expended and the fact that valuable delivery systems (aircraft) and propulsion are uninvolved
d. the ability to suddenly and unpredictably upscale the staccato delivery against a particular high-value target
e. the adverse psychological effect upon the Russian populace (the vulnerability syndrome that gets the ego’s attention)
f. When the upper-level winds are favourable, to inexplicably inflict casualties at much greater ranges from the contested border -thereby creating great uncertainty as to exactly who, what and where in Russia is vulnerable.
g. The ability to inflict a second attack some few hours later against the same point target (thereby creating uncertainty amongst the gathering rescue party reaction) aka the well-known “double-tap” that the Russki’s are increasingly using against Ukraine’s major installations.
h. The certainty of taking out high value targets (such as refineries) with a minor munition delivered in threes – but not simultaneously (the staccato Bombard versus the fusillade)
i. Not least, the ability for Ukraine to organically produce such a simplistic weapon in-country via mass production - utilizing available unskilled labour.
j. But if you want to further "seek to simplify", just attach the munition to three latex meteorological balloons when winds aloft are propitiously favourable - and when they burst at 115,000ft, the ordnance will drop somewhere on the Russian side of the lines or in Crimea (straight outa the blue - so to speak)
Ribbed Styrofoam should suffice, but a well smoothed 8.5m elliptical thin plastic airfoil could also be robust and rigid enough for very low speeds (nil flutter). However, unsure what L/D ratio you would achieve via the higher TAS at height - or to what extent it would vary with altitude. Ranges up to 450nms should be reliably achievable. You’d only launch one wave (i.e. the balloon-launched gliders in a swarm) if the upper-level winds guaranteed high-level drift in the right direction. Similarly, a few wing-less impact-fused tank rounds could be used at shorter ranges with a line-of-sight release mechanism similar to what some designs of recoverable drones are using. It’s called harassment and interdiction.
A wing angle of incidence of around 11 degrees sounds about right for those 90km/hr IAS gliding speeds. Think about letting the unswept wing dihedral nail the directional stability and permitting the all-moving fin to do any GPS-guided course correction. Four tail-mounted fins at a mutual 90 degrees (crucifix style) would also achieve something similar if the upper and lower fins were uniformly steerable.
The reason for utilizing cheap latex standard met balloons (3 of) with each of the three being two balloons (double enveloped) inside each other and only the internal one gassed) would be to guarantee a higher burst height. .. of circa 130,000ft... and lowest costs.
However, the stratospheric aerodynamics are headed where no-one's ever went before. Thinking Mach No effects here.
I think that a simple 3.5" diameter propeller that could unwind a screw-thread and free it of the burst balloon drag would suffice once some forward directional speed was achieved (after a single balloon burst). It could then simply freewheel or drop off. But then again, no-one could ever be sure that one balloon would reliably burst followed swiftly by the other two. A more cunning release mechanism may be required. An open/unclasped cup-hook that let all three balloons go once one or two single-point suspension balloons burst - and the craft’s attitude thereupon changed to adopt an attitude for actual sustained forward gliding flight (instead of its lofted vertically-suspended nose-up 90 degree attitude at launch) – might well do the trick. A squadron Launch could be achieved by tethering a dozen balloons together to loosely follow a higher leader carrying the single GPS and steering mechanism.
My understanding is that you would have to stipulate a singular aim-point for the GPS before launch. and utilize a nulling-out steerage mechanism to simply "point at" (i.e. “home on” the GPS target) post release - to keep unit costs down.
But looking at the simplicity of launch and not risking man nor machine nor wasting propellant does very much appeal to my parsimonious nature as far as killing Russkies at the mere cost of a dime a dozen (or better still, taking out a neatly parked row of their aerial war machines). The payload of a 40kg to 50kg impact-fused tank-round seems about right for lofted destructivity and the bonus would always be that if not stealthy, it would still be sneaky... and arrive unannounced - except for its Stuka siren in the last 2500ft plunge towards the target... via a barometric trigger uncovering a port in the nose. The sudden silence of a German buzz-bomb made it into the terror weapon it became.
Overall, the cost of a lengthy war has strained the European and US purse-strings towards an unwillingness to perpetuate the conflict... so a cheaper way of chronically taking the war to the enemy is sorely needed. Without such steps to cheapen the conflict for Ukraine, I can see the pacifiers, pacifists and appeasers forcing Zelensky into negotiating a compromise quasi-permanent “peace-accord” halt not far down track (in around 12 to 18 months). Keep in mind that image of Neville Chamberlain waving his pathetic piece of paper with Hitler’s signature upon it.
For targeting, designation of GPS coordinates is the relatively inexpensive obvious solution. The Russian FAB 500 and FAB 1500 glide bombs may carry more bang but not “more bang for the buck”... and their launch platforms are very vulnerable.
If you ask Dr Google: In what direction does the prevailing upper-level winds blow over Ukraine in Winter?”
He will tell you:
“In northwestern regions the westerlies prevail.Southern regions are the zone of the northerly and northeasterly winds. The average speed increases and ranges from 2 to 4 m/s and in mountainous regions, from 5 to 5 m/s.”
That’s the way the wind blows. It’s altogether in Ukraine’s favour for their winter sports carnival. Barnes Wallis would be proud to be associated with such a device. It would put a bounce back in his step.
Bomber Harris had the right idea when he almost unilaterally decided that carrying the war deep into the enemy heartland was the path to victory. After the Luftwaffe switched from RAF airfields to blitzing London, the German populace were auto-switched to a defensive posture and mindset by nightly RAF raids and the daily USAF bombardment. It might seem like wearing your knuckle-dusters inside your glove as far as destruction goes, but steps in the right direction are always better than just “taking it on the chin”. Even the US Pentagon logistics boys are now delivering the ATACMS with a wink and a nod in the right direction.
It’s worth reflecting upon the fact that the Japanese launched thousands of high altitude balloons carrying incendiary and biological agents in 1944/45 to the USA and that their remnants are still being found all over the US/Canada (see the youtube video). The propaganda effect was squished by a D notice courtesy of the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover. Hamas has previously done something very similar on a large scale from Gaza with pyrotechnics attached to party balloons (see youtube video).
The best of the new models has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia. Born out of necessity—the West has been reluctant to provide Ukraine with long-range weapons—the programme has now disrupted much of Russia’s oil and military infrastructure”
A Potent Ukrainian Glide-Bomb with very little outlay
For very little cost overall, such a Balloon-lofted Glider-Borne tank-round munitions project would have a "punch above its weight" effect upon Russian morale. When you talk in terms of quid pro quo, it's not the size of the delivered munition that matters, It's in practical order:
a. the inability to detect and defend against it.
b. Its total unpredictability (no air raid sirens)
c. the minimal resources expended and the fact that valuable delivery systems (aircraft) and propulsion are uninvolved
d. the ability to suddenly and unpredictably upscale the staccato delivery against a particular high-value target
e. the adverse psychological effect upon the Russian populace (the vulnerability syndrome that gets the ego’s attention)
f. When the upper-level winds are favourable, to inexplicably inflict casualties at much greater ranges from the contested border -thereby creating great uncertainty as to exactly who, what and where in Russia is vulnerable.
g. The ability to inflict a second attack some few hours later against the same point target (thereby creating uncertainty amongst the gathering rescue party reaction) aka the well-known “double-tap” that the Russki’s are increasingly using against Ukraine’s major installations.
h. The certainty of taking out high value targets (such as refineries) with a minor munition delivered in threes – but not simultaneously (the staccato Bombard versus the fusillade)
i. Not least, the ability for Ukraine to organically produce such a simplistic weapon in-country via mass production - utilizing available unskilled labour.
j. But if you want to further "seek to simplify", just attach the munition to three latex meteorological balloons when winds aloft are propitiously favourable - and when they burst at 115,000ft, the ordnance will drop somewhere on the Russian side of the lines or in Crimea (straight outa the blue - so to speak)
Ribbed Styrofoam should suffice, but a well smoothed 8.5m elliptical thin plastic airfoil could also be robust and rigid enough for very low speeds (nil flutter). However, unsure what L/D ratio you would achieve via the higher TAS at height - or to what extent it would vary with altitude. Ranges up to 450nms should be reliably achievable. You’d only launch one wave (i.e. the balloon-launched gliders in a swarm) if the upper-level winds guaranteed high-level drift in the right direction. Similarly, a few wing-less impact-fused tank rounds could be used at shorter ranges with a line-of-sight release mechanism similar to what some designs of recoverable drones are using. It’s called harassment and interdiction.
A wing angle of incidence of around 11 degrees sounds about right for those 90km/hr IAS gliding speeds. Think about letting the unswept wing dihedral nail the directional stability and permitting the all-moving fin to do any GPS-guided course correction. Four tail-mounted fins at a mutual 90 degrees (crucifix style) would also achieve something similar if the upper and lower fins were uniformly steerable.
The reason for utilizing cheap latex standard met balloons (3 of) with each of the three being two balloons (double enveloped) inside each other and only the internal one gassed) would be to guarantee a higher burst height. .. of circa 130,000ft... and lowest costs.
However, the stratospheric aerodynamics are headed where no-one's ever went before. Thinking Mach No effects here.
I think that a simple 3.5" diameter propeller that could unwind a screw-thread and free it of the burst balloon drag would suffice once some forward directional speed was achieved (after a single balloon burst). It could then simply freewheel or drop off. But then again, no-one could ever be sure that one balloon would reliably burst followed swiftly by the other two. A more cunning release mechanism may be required. An open/unclasped cup-hook that let all three balloons go once one or two single-point suspension balloons burst - and the craft’s attitude thereupon changed to adopt an attitude for actual sustained forward gliding flight (instead of its lofted vertically-suspended nose-up 90 degree attitude at launch) – might well do the trick. A squadron Launch could be achieved by tethering a dozen balloons together to loosely follow a higher leader carrying the single GPS and steering mechanism.
My understanding is that you would have to stipulate a singular aim-point for the GPS before launch. and utilize a nulling-out steerage mechanism to simply "point at" (i.e. “home on” the GPS target) post release - to keep unit costs down.
But looking at the simplicity of launch and not risking man nor machine nor wasting propellant does very much appeal to my parsimonious nature as far as killing Russkies at the mere cost of a dime a dozen (or better still, taking out a neatly parked row of their aerial war machines). The payload of a 40kg to 50kg impact-fused tank-round seems about right for lofted destructivity and the bonus would always be that if not stealthy, it would still be sneaky... and arrive unannounced - except for its Stuka siren in the last 2500ft plunge towards the target... via a barometric trigger uncovering a port in the nose. The sudden silence of a German buzz-bomb made it into the terror weapon it became.
Overall, the cost of a lengthy war has strained the European and US purse-strings towards an unwillingness to perpetuate the conflict... so a cheaper way of chronically taking the war to the enemy is sorely needed. Without such steps to cheapen the conflict for Ukraine, I can see the pacifiers, pacifists and appeasers forcing Zelensky into negotiating a compromise quasi-permanent “peace-accord” halt not far down track (in around 12 to 18 months). Keep in mind that image of Neville Chamberlain waving his pathetic piece of paper with Hitler’s signature upon it.
For targeting, designation of GPS coordinates is the relatively inexpensive obvious solution. The Russian FAB 500 and FAB 1500 glide bombs may carry more bang but not “more bang for the buck”... and their launch platforms are very vulnerable.
If you ask Dr Google: In what direction does the prevailing upper-level winds blow over Ukraine in Winter?”
He will tell you:
“In northwestern regions the westerlies prevail.Southern regions are the zone of the northerly and northeasterly winds. The average speed increases and ranges from 2 to 4 m/s and in mountainous regions, from 5 to 5 m/s.”
That’s the way the wind blows. It’s altogether in Ukraine’s favour for their winter sports carnival. Barnes Wallis would be proud to be associated with such a device. It would put a bounce back in his step.
Bomber Harris had the right idea when he almost unilaterally decided that carrying the war deep into the enemy heartland was the path to victory. After the Luftwaffe switched from RAF airfields to blitzing London, the German populace were auto-switched to a defensive posture and mindset by nightly RAF raids and the daily USAF bombardment. It might seem like wearing your knuckle-dusters inside your glove as far as destruction goes, but steps in the right direction are always better than just “taking it on the chin”. Even the US Pentagon logistics boys are now delivering the ATACMS with a wink and a nod in the right direction.
It’s worth reflecting upon the fact that the Japanese launched thousands of high altitude balloons carrying incendiary and biological agents in 1944/45 to the USA and that their remnants are still being found all over the US/Canada (see the youtube video). The propaganda effect was squished by a D notice courtesy of the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover. Hamas has previously done something very similar on a large scale from Gaza with pyrotechnics attached to party balloons (see youtube video).
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wanting to burst a nice idea, though, what about the coffin corner at the 115K ft altitude when having super simple wings, technically only suitable for GA speeds. This might reduce the glide distance considerable, not to speak about the "learning" of stall recovery procedures integrated in the control module of the bolted on wings.....
Thread Starter
High Altitude Complications?
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/mach-number
has the multiple-entry factor table to determine Mach No:
Mach number calculator
speed of object (IAS) = 90km/hr
speed of sound = 1063.4 km/hr
air temperature (ISA) = -56 degs Celsius
==>> mach .08643 (i.e. doubt any shock-waves would form or that we should see any Prandtl-Meyer effects)
Unswept straight elliptical wings with positive dihedral should not be affected by a lack of yaw-damping. Once naturally assuming non balloon-lofted height circa115Kft to 130Kft (i.e. once freed of the burst balloons), a properly weight-configured aerodynamic vehicle should naturally assume gliding flight at the designed-in speed. Due to the higher TAS initially, the glide ratio should be fairly constant and consistent. The wing-leveller would be courtesy of rudder steering of the GPS steerable top and bottom fins (of the four cruciform tail-fins). They will maintain fore-aft axis alignment with the distant GPS defined target. It's a point-and-shoot arrangement that continually "nulls out" x-wind effect and homes on the target as a destination waypoint. As there'd be no fuel consumption, C of G change or speed variance, the glide should be quite unperturbed by localized air-mass variance effects at that low speed (i.e. upper-level turbulence). It should be quite speed-stable. Entry into a vertical dive upon arrival at the target coords can be at any height (with a barometric trigger for either/both the Hollywood siren's paralyzing noise effects and a GPS dictated hard-over on the horizontal tail surfaces for vertical dive-entry).
Contrasted against the many hundreds of millions being spent on highly sophisticated drones for distant bombardment of enemy HQ's, storage facilities, barracks, refineries and factories, such a simple and uncomplicated weapon would only be subject to the vagaries of wind. Detecting, countering or target area interdicting such a weapon would be tantamount to impossible. It's the quid pro quo that costs but a few quid. One of the advantages of such an apparently aimless, wandering but poignant and pointing (yet accurate) homing weapon is its unpredictability. It can end up approaching from completely unexpected directions (not that it would be noticed at such low speeds). Imagine the forward fuselage being an egg-shaped styrofoam pod (with the nose's cuphook suspension point, 50kg munition, battery, GPS kit and barometric switch) and with the CRUCIFORM fin empennage being mounted aft on 3.5m of 150mm drain-pipe (USD $100). 8.5 metre wings would be ribbed styrofoam.
For easily packaged transport, the wings could be sectioned into 4 pieces and glued via locating lugs to fuselage pod and to the internal ribs of outer wing sections on launch-site. Styrofoam is readily amenable to a simple instant Superglue adhesion (per many youtube videos). Should be good for +4.5/-2.5g inflight loadings.
has the multiple-entry factor table to determine Mach No:
Mach number calculator
speed of object (IAS) = 90km/hr
speed of sound = 1063.4 km/hr
air temperature (ISA) = -56 degs Celsius
==>> mach .08643 (i.e. doubt any shock-waves would form or that we should see any Prandtl-Meyer effects)
Unswept straight elliptical wings with positive dihedral should not be affected by a lack of yaw-damping. Once naturally assuming non balloon-lofted height circa115Kft to 130Kft (i.e. once freed of the burst balloons), a properly weight-configured aerodynamic vehicle should naturally assume gliding flight at the designed-in speed. Due to the higher TAS initially, the glide ratio should be fairly constant and consistent. The wing-leveller would be courtesy of rudder steering of the GPS steerable top and bottom fins (of the four cruciform tail-fins). They will maintain fore-aft axis alignment with the distant GPS defined target. It's a point-and-shoot arrangement that continually "nulls out" x-wind effect and homes on the target as a destination waypoint. As there'd be no fuel consumption, C of G change or speed variance, the glide should be quite unperturbed by localized air-mass variance effects at that low speed (i.e. upper-level turbulence). It should be quite speed-stable. Entry into a vertical dive upon arrival at the target coords can be at any height (with a barometric trigger for either/both the Hollywood siren's paralyzing noise effects and a GPS dictated hard-over on the horizontal tail surfaces for vertical dive-entry).
Contrasted against the many hundreds of millions being spent on highly sophisticated drones for distant bombardment of enemy HQ's, storage facilities, barracks, refineries and factories, such a simple and uncomplicated weapon would only be subject to the vagaries of wind. Detecting, countering or target area interdicting such a weapon would be tantamount to impossible. It's the quid pro quo that costs but a few quid. One of the advantages of such an apparently aimless, wandering but poignant and pointing (yet accurate) homing weapon is its unpredictability. It can end up approaching from completely unexpected directions (not that it would be noticed at such low speeds). Imagine the forward fuselage being an egg-shaped styrofoam pod (with the nose's cuphook suspension point, 50kg munition, battery, GPS kit and barometric switch) and with the CRUCIFORM fin empennage being mounted aft on 3.5m of 150mm drain-pipe (USD $100). 8.5 metre wings would be ribbed styrofoam.
For easily packaged transport, the wings could be sectioned into 4 pieces and glued via locating lugs to fuselage pod and to the internal ribs of outer wing sections on launch-site. Styrofoam is readily amenable to a simple instant Superglue adhesion (per many youtube videos). Should be good for +4.5/-2.5g inflight loadings.
