Russia-Ukraine Flash Report 31 JAN 2023 15:45 PST - What is GLSDB and Why Does it Matter
Added 2023-02-01 00:20:21 +0000 UTCBack in the 2010s SAAB and Boeing got an idea.
What would happen if they got a 250-pound (120 kilogram*) small-diameter gravity bomb (dumb bomb), gave it an M26 rocket engine, radar, and GPS guidance, wings that unfold after deployment, and the ability to follow a preprogrammed course like a cruise missile at ballistic speed with a range of 150 kilometers and accuracy of +/- 1 meter?
That's what GLSDB is, and in 2015 the system was tested with the purpose of targeting cave complexes in Afghanistan to collapse the entrances. The terrain-following radar system would enable the system to fly below radar detection, making shooting down the system much harder. Its small size and speed would also make it difficult to target with MANPADS while the upgraded accuracy over the now retired M26/M28 and the current M30/M31 rockets would enable pinpoint strikes with multiple rockets assuring mission success. And unlike the M30/M31, which takes an arcing trajectory, the GLSDB can follow valleys and rivers, go around mountains, and then strike from above, or below, or through a window. A volley of six could take different preprogrammed paths, making detection and interception even harder.
Best of all, in 2023 dollars, each assembly costs under $100,000. In comparison, a 155-mm GPS-guided Excalibur shell costs $68,000 with 1/4 the range and 5X less accuracy (which isn't to say +/- 5 meters at 40 kilometers from an artillery piece is bad).
There were no takers.
Fast forward to 2022.
The United States had ordered a very large supply, thousands, of Mk.81 120* kilogram small-diameter bombs for the Afghanistan military...oooops.
The United States is now sitting on a massive stockpile of Mk.81 120* kilogram small-diameter bombs with little purpose for the United States military that was already paid for. The United States is also sitting on a stockpile of thousands of M26 rocket motors built for now-retired first-generation GMLRS HIMARS rockets. Interestingly, the Mk.81 diameter means it can fit in the 227-millimeter HIMARS system.
Ukraine must hit multiple logistical targets up to 150 kilometers away to disrupt Russian supplies and logistics further. Escalation worries aside, there isn't a large inventory of ATACMS missiles ready to be transferred to anyone. How to solve this problem?
It appears the United States will announce a $2.2 billion aid package tomorrow that will include GLSDB. They can be launched by M142, M270, MARS II, and LRU GMLRS systems (aka HIMARS), loaded using the existing cassette system, and will require minimal training.
Another perk, the United States can produce thousands of these with a minimal cost impact to the American taxpayer, who has already paid for a pile of Mk.81 bombs and M26 rockets that are currently unused. The rest of the technology isn't earth-shattering or revolutionary, and SAAB and Boeing already ate the development costs in the 2010s. There is no "secret" technology that could fall into Russian hands.
Is this a game-changer?
We underestimated the impact HIMARS would have in June 2022, and mobiks would have by early 2023 after serving as speed bumps for most of the fall (yes, we read your comments!). Russia adjusted its logistics to move big piles of ammunition out of HIMARS range - this will change the situation. Russian logistics are still railroad based, and having to pull back ammunition stockpiles to 175 kilometers from the line of contact will have a significant and negative effect.
Russia didn't magically decide not to store piles of ammunition in big piles; they just don't do it within 85 kilometers of the line of conflict anymore, which is why we don't see the massive explosions caused by HIMARS strikes that continued through September. Just out of range, ammo is still left in huge unsecured piles and moved by hand.
Every Russian logistical point sitting in Ukraine, except the southern two-thirds-ish of Crimea, will be in the range of miniature HIMARS-launched cruise missiles if GLSDB arrives in Ukraine.
As for the punitive missile strike that will come from Russia against civilians and civilian infrastructure? The weather is unfavorable for reconnaissance all this week, so expect a delay this time.
* The Mk.81 small-diameter bomb is classified as a 250-pound weapon but weighs 264 pounds, which is 120 kilograms. It has a 45-kilogram warhead that has been engineered to have the same explosive force of 113 kilograms of TNT.
Comments
Strictly my opinion - 100% agreed. We don't want technology X to fall into the hands of the Russians (or Chinese, or...). So am I to understand that if we were at war with country X we would hold back on using weapon system Y because we don't want it to fall into enemy hands? I can wrap my head around not wanting to give F-35s to any nation or the top secret armor on the Abrams. One of the inherent qualities we've been told since the 1990s of drones is that it doesn't risk a pilot if its shot down. If we're so worried about the drone being shot down in the first place, isn't that an issue? Hasn't Iran, Afghanistan, Daesh, Syrian rebels, and Yemen resistance fighters already shot down Reapers and Predators? It doesn't sit well with me either but 100% my opinion viewed through the lens of a taxpayer.
2023-02-01 22:09:03 +0000 UTCThe 'technology falling into Russian hands' argument has never really sat with me as an argument against sending the up-to-date stuff. Of course, there's stuff like rail guns or Gauss rifles and other developmental and technology advancing research items, but the vast majority of everything that's actually fielded is knowledge and technology Russia already have. They're a space fairing and nuclear nation. You expect me to believe that they couldn't create a HIMARs themselves or that the targeting/GPS designation systems in the Bradley ODS would be a 'wow, we can reverse engineer this!' situation? Nonsense. They have T14, they know what APS is, they know what ERA, composite armour, thermal imaging, GPS targeting and all that is. The issue with that tank isn't the tech or the tank itself, it's with everything that leads into it. The reason why they don't do it is because they lack the resources in both materials, manufacturing capacity and enough skilled people in the workforce (and corruption). Them capturing an Abrams or Challenger2 or Bradley ODS isn't going to teach them anything that they don't know already in concept. Case in point their shortages of cruise missiles.
Luke
2023-02-01 09:26:22 +0000 UTCActually wondered when this would be put together. Six months ago I mentioned this combo but the comments were dismissed as “too expensive” or “out of date tech.” Glad to be right and very glad someone, somewhere, thought the same. I’m old. But I’m also cheap and inventive.
Jeffrey Price
2023-02-01 01:50:24 +0000 UTC
