Rocket Assisted Glide Bomb

[sharp shale]

My idea for a larger, rocket assisted glide bomb.

• Top Speed: 300m/s (In terminal boost phase)
• Range: 50km +/- (depending on launch conditions)
• Warhead: 250kg high-explosive
• Guidance: Datalink + terminal optical homing
• Flight Altitude: Variable, with possible terrain-following capabilities for stealthier approaches.
• Propulsion: Solid-rocket booster (triggers during terminal phase or when speed drops below 125 m/s)
• Dimensions: 2 m length, 0.35 m diameter, 1.5 m wingspan (Deployed)
• Launch Platforms: Air launched
• Manoeuvrability: Minor adjustments to course achieved through small fins
• Countermeasures: Low relative RCS

[dense lark]

AGM-68 with more steps

[sharp shale]

GPO-250ER vs AGM-68

• More than 2x the yield compared to AGM-68
• Can be fired from BVR and guided via GPS/Datalink
• Terrain following capability
• Much smaller RCS compared to AGM-68
• Does not have an IR signature for the majority of its flight, unlike AGM-68
• 50km+ range vs 15km
• Terminal boost phase decreases time-to-target on final approach

[proper hatch]

Open guide bomb
Propellant
/j good alternative to the fighter launched cruises I have been begging for

[sharp shale]

I think this would be a good middle ground and provide fighters with an actual long-range standoff capability, without making cruise missiles on other aircraft irrelevant.

[hazy path]

let me get this straight first: in your vision, is this "rocket assisted glide bomb" going to retain heat signature?

Because you're almost describing a cruise missile...

[wintry orchid]

I don’t think so,

The pab-80 has a very minimal heat signature and the agm-68 has a decent heat signature due to its thuster. This idea would have it have basically no thermal sig until it turns on its agm-68 equivalent rocket

[delicate horizon]

rocket assisted in the fact that its terminal phase includes a booster for faster acceleration

[hazy path]

thing is if this "Rocket glide bomb" has heat signature during terminal phase, it's pointless, it's just a "easier to intercept" PABLO.
And if not we'd have to give a munition a changing heat signature which may be problematic system-wise

[sharp shale]

Think of it as a glide bomb with a terminal boost phase

[hazy path]

that's even worse. it's literally worst of both worlds.
It's not as fast as a missile and not without heat signature like a bomb.

[sharp shale]

Opinion noted

[hazy path]

(will keep this off politics, just talking about IRL usage case)
remember why glide bomb is used by Russia against Ukraine and why it's so much of a problem for Ukraine?
Because glide bomb has the range of a missile but the difficulty-to-detect of a bomb. That's the point of the weapon. Adding a rocket motor would destroy this unique advantage, while still not making it as good as a missile in terms of flying performance.

[sharp shale]

It would be significantly better at penetrating radar networks, as it would have a low enough RCS to be invisible at distance and once it gets close to the target it sprints to it, being terrain following and low while in boost phase would not allow much time for RSAMs to intercept.

[proper hatch]

Also better for defeating optical defenses by giving less time for them to kill it due to speed

[delicate horizon]

im bout to bring up a real life example of what RNG is trying to describe here. america built a paveway gps bomb that had a rocket engine in it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-123_Skipper_II

only difference with this design and RNGs description is that this is not a glide bomb and it uses the rocket motor at the start

[hazy path]

that's not how it works in a world where heat signature is a problem.
The only rocket assisted glide bombs that existed are WWII stuff like the MXY-7 and BV143.
Modern "rocket assisted glide bomb" are always "rocket first, glide later" i.e. the rocket simply extends its range, and it still approaches target unpowered so as not to create a heat signature.

Also since <6km is EO detection range, having a small RCS does not increase your survivability against radar net.

@delicate horizon your example is NOT terminal rocket. That's very critical difference. WWII has terminal rocket glide bombs because speeding up makes sense to get through visual-gun-laying AA guns, and heat signature wasn't a thing. This is not the case now.

[delicate horizon]

you think i dont know that?

[hazy path]

You said "only difference" so apparently you don't realize how critical this difference is.

[sharp shale]

Many AShms have a terminal sprint phase, so this would be no different, just without a ramjet.

[delicate horizon]

buddy you are getting really damn serious about a game. do you really feel the need to completly dismantle everyones fun ideas for new weapons?

[hazy path]

I dismatle it because I can already see it's not going to be useful.
Modern glide-bomb-like applications with rockets are always "rocket first glide later", and that has very good reasons.

[sharp shale]

Hey, if you lack the understanding to use niche weapons in effective ways that's fair.

[hazy path]

why bother if you know that weapon is going to be niche (read: underpowered)?
A weapon is a tool to complete a mission. If I have to tender to its needs too much it becomes less and less useful.

[sharp shale]

Perhaps because having weapons that excel in certain (but not all) scenarios makes for interesting gameplay?

[delicate horizon]

^^^^^

[hazy path]

The preferred way would be to design weapon according to your needs, not having you to tender to the weapons needs.

[sharp shale]

You're arguement is pretty flawed, but we obviously have different ideas of what we want the game to look like.

[hazy path]

You are literally suggesting designing a weapon for a scenario and THEN create that scenario for it to be useful. That's not how war works.

[sharp shale]

It's okay that you don't understand it, but arguing isn't going to allow me to enlighten you I imagine.

[delicate horizon]

this isnt a war tho. its literally a game. RNG can literally create a scenario needed for this weapon in his upcoming Final Escalation if he wants to. If this weapon did make it i would love to see it used in that mission.

[hazy path]

you can't "enlighten" me. You are the one that needs to be educated.
Weapons are designed to fit war needs, not having its users to create a war that fits the weapon.

[sharp shale]

I don't think you understand what you are arguing

[hazy path]

I do, better than you. You are doing the entire weapon design procedure in reverse. The weapon should serve the user (and the scenario that the user encounters), not the other way around.

[delicate horizon]

ITS A FRIGGIN GAME

[sharp shale]

You've embarrased yourself enough already vcharng

[hazy path]

it's a game about war and has rather decent level of realism.
And no it's you two embarassing yourself by doing it wrong and imposting to be Mitch.

[delicate horizon]

i dont even know what your trying to argue about at this point.

[hazy path]

not my problem. I made my point very clear.
Don't create a weapon first and then expect the user to tender to its needs. It's not how it works.

[sharp shale]

Noted, anything else you care to share?

[topaz phoenix]

I feel like this would just get intercepted by IR missiles or SPAAG

[delicate horizon]

i can see the bomb being intercepted by both during different parts of its flight

something that i can also see happening is that the bomb is released in close proximity to a target and just goes straight to the terminal phase

[sharp shale]

It absolutely could be, I think that having weapons that are strong against some targets and weak against others makes things interesting 🙂

[topaz phoenix]

True, although it may be a better idea if it used the evasive maneuvers like the 68, especially if it has spare energy from boosting

[sharp shale]

The other thing I considered was having it just boost off of the rail and then the motor would fall off, so it would have a low IR but be slower on terminal.

[topaz phoenix]

I mean, that’s how modern glide bombs works, and it makes more sense to me that way. I think it could work better as a stand off weapon like that

[delicate horizon]

the way i see it is that its a pablo that drinks a friggin redbull once it gets closer to its target

[lost storm]

Having it boost at the start then drop the booster on burnout makes a lot more sense tbh: could even have it start by pitching up after leaving the rail so it's not using the booster to gain speed but climbing to act like a bomb dropped from a higher alt

[delicate horizon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-123_Skipper_II thats basically what this was. it didn't pitch up as you propose nor was it an actual glide bomb but the booster gave it more range and slight bit of a stand off capability.

the idea of it actually pitching up could provide it with more range and eventually a faster speed. would love to see a pablo go mach 5 or some shit.

[lost storm]

I was kinda going directly off your post about the skipper actually, although there's another similar munition i was thinking of as well: AGM-130, where the booster was underslung instead of stuck on the ass-end
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-130

[sharp shale]

That looks wild, interesting.

[delicate horizon]

thats actually cool. did not know that existed

[wintry orchid]

This could be an intended feature or an unintended but useful one - a rocket powered PAB-250 that is better for low altitude bombing but is easier to intercept with IR

[delicate horizon]

honestly it would be hilarious to just bumrush an objective with a bunch of rocket pablos

[proper hatch]

I think the SPAAG would have trouble with it honestly
In terminal it may be too fast for it to hit

[brittle imp]

Perhaps both, but automatically switching depending on airspeed, altitude and distance to tgt. I.e. low speed it immediately engages the booster and glides the rest of the way, but high speed it glides and then boosts for even higher speeds

[lost storm]

yes but instead of speed i would say do that based on drop altitude, boosting to climb if released at low alt vs boosting on terminal from a high alt drop

[hazy path]

that's the "correct" way of building a rocket assisted glide bomb in today's war "meta". you use it to increase range, not to "sprint in during the terminal phase"

hell a glide bomb doesn't have a terminal phase.

[north tusk]

I just want a bigger glide bomb
Also I want a smaller cruise missile

[brittle imp]

Second is still a valid thought. I feel like you criticise too harshly a thing where no bearing on effectiveness is known and thus has to be tested.

You also seem to be very busy advocating "realism", while we have in-game: an aircraft mounted laser coupled to an old mechanical radome while everything else has phased array radar, omnipresent datalink system capable of distinguishing and communicating threats to specific aircraft over extreme ranges, non HOB-capable AIM-9X, et cetera. Rule of cool rules over whether it should be "realistic", that is left to the aircraft designs to make them work with the physics, not that we have to restrict ourselves to real life weaponry because that's what exists in real life right now which is the only weaponry fit to 'war needs', which is a remarkably empty and dismissive statement without actually going in to detail besides "the weapon should serve the user" (god knows what that means).
Additionally you've done nothing but be rude and commit to "acktually" instead of being constructive and leaving your note where it stands rather than deriding the people in the thread for "not understanding how war works" and being argumentative when they aren't beckoned to your point of view. Shame.

[wicked bobcat]

came for the cool rocket pab 250, stayed for the surgical precision debunking, delicious

[random ravine]

This'd be very interesting to see, there's great potential for standoff precision support when allies are going in on ground runs. Also that bomb->sprint phase would be really nice for that one errant Sam truck that's kind of in the way but 30km from any other enemies. Properly ignore them by lobbing over them.

[silk frost]

We will be getting fighter launched cruise missiles at some point in the future, potentially 0.29

[delicate horizon]

I’m pretty sure this what RNG has in mind with this suggestion. Your example of an AA gun that’s just being annoying is also relatable af

[upper notch]

I like this, pablos need an alternative since they got nerfed

[silk frost]

I really haven't noticed much of a difference other than they're slower tbh

[upper notch]

Their RCS got boosted, they get zapped out the air by radars

[silk frost]

They did before too though so tbh it doesn't bother me, i think it's fun taking the Medusa to jam Boltstrikes and Radar Trucks and dropping PAB-80's on them

[delicate horizon]

I forget. Can the Medusa carry PAB-80s?

[hazy path]

rocket assisted glide bombs will not boost their survivability tho. this aint WWII, you're just adding heat signature to the pablo and enable more kinds of air defense (namely IR SAM) to intercept it

[hazy path]

yeah I never understood the hype about pablo. They are already too easily intercepted and aside from the recent nerf people are coming up with more ways to nerf it. I just don't understand.

[plucky cosmos]

More accurate than 250, longer range than a 250, hits hard enough to 1 shot MBTs, can carry 3 on one pylon, cant be shot by IR SAMs

[silk frost]

Yep. I carry x3 on each inner wing pylon, 2 outer jamming pods, 2 internal ARAD's, along with the Radome.

Fly up to 40,000ft, find enemy radar sites, jam and send a PAB-80LR their way from 20 miles out. Preferable to make a few nearby passes to detect all possible radar SAM's. Don't have to worry about any IR SAM's of course because you'll be out of their range and no 80 detection

[delicate horizon]

Would you follow a similar pattern with the Pablo’s RNG is describing in this post?

[hazy path]

wdym more accurate than 250. 250 will hit the target that's all
and I have actually pablo'd and failed to killed a friggin jeep. IDK why our experience with pablo would be THIS far.

[plucky cosmos]

250s and 500s ive noticed can miss quite often and im not sure why, they are very accurate but there is more room for error apparently

[hazy path]

well if you mean non-gliding bombs have to "be dropped within a certain margin" while pablo don't, then yeah we can agree on that.

[delicate horizon]

I’ve seen the blast wave from 250s in close proximity literally throw other 250s off course. Same can be said for other free fall projectiles.

[plucky cosmos]

Oh absolutely, the range is a lot more restrictive, but also 250s will actually straight up miss a moving target sometimes

[hazy path]

and yes one of pablo's strong suit is IRSAM immunity. And guess what this "rocket-assist" suggestion is going to take away?

[plucky cosmos]

Yeah i was just making a statement regarding why Pablos are so hype
Theyre really good and their only weakness is lacking that anti structure punch of the other bombs

[hazy path]

not in my experience. Not after I have failed to penetrate a single SPAAG with 10 pablos

[plucky cosmos]

SPAAGs are the biggest enemy of the Pablo, since they use Optical and not IR guidance they can see them easily, and the Pablo is slow which makes it an easy gun target for the SPAAGs

[delicate horizon]

My Pablo’s have always been very effective against enemy armor of all types. In some cases the MBT has just gone straight up Russian bias mode and negated all damage but that mostly cuz it hit head on.

[hazy path]

they are slow, not as stealthy as they should be, and not surviable enough. They work in low intensity situations only and that's already a more polite way to say "weak".

[plucky cosmos]

250s and 500s have the same problem man
SPAAGs mince them and theyre slower than AGMs

[hazy path]

they do not. I don't fail to penetrate a single SPAAG with 10x 250s
even AGM-48s penetrate air defense better than pablos, unless of course you have a AD that exclusively consists of IRSAMs.

[plucky cosmos]

Well I mean your dropping 10 on one SPAAG, free fall bombs are faster and sturdier
And 48s have evasion so yes they can weave around SPAAG firing
I dont exactly understand your platform here, is it that Pablos suck?

[hazy path]

48s have evasion? I thought only 68s?

[delicate horizon]

That’s cuz there’s ten of them. You overwhelmed it with multiple targets. Of course one of them will make it through. And for context what SPAAG did you target?

[silk frost]

Hmm I'm not sure. I'm a fan of a rocket assist off the rail for sure, but I'm not sure if I'm onboard with a rocket assist when nearing the target. I feel like a rocket assist when nearing a target would work better for a 2-stage missile of some kind, in tandem with evasive maneuvering, but that's just my opinion and I don't want to impose a different concept here.

I'm assume the rocket assist off the rail would grant it that extra "umph" it needs though. I would really like that and would definitely use that

[hazy path]

I was comparing against 10 pablos to show just how weak pablo's AD survivability is.
And it doesn't matter which SPAAG it is. either Anvil or Aerosentry can take down near infinite amount of pablos.

[delicate horizon]

So RNG made another point that if it didn’t use the rocket motor off the rail it would use when it dropped below a certain speed.

[hazy path]

and you are right to prefer that. like I said this ain't wwii. accelerating in terminal stage doesn't make your munition survive better.
There's a reason why real world "rocket assisted glide bombs" are always "rocket first, glide terminal" and not the other way around. Some even discards the rocket motor after the burn to reduce heat signature.

not to mention we're getting a 76mm guided cannon soon. This is our "high speed no heat signature" penetration option. We don't need something to kill pablo's last advantage only to create a "high speed yes heat signature" alternative that isn't going to become an alternative at all.

[delicate horizon]

You are right in regards to the Anvil and Aerosentry being able to take down a near infinite amount of Pablo’s if they are within range of a munitions truck. That and if the bombs are being sent one at a time. But drop a bunch at one time and the AA defenses will be overwhelmed.

[silk frost]

Hmm. I should clarify before I respond. Is this bomb expected to have the same IR-less characteristics as the standard PAB-80LR we love? Just to explain my point of view, if it is supposed to be able to avoid IR SAM's like the PAB-80LR, I don't think a late-stage booster would do it any good. Just physics wise is all, if it's supposed to be employed effectively against IR SAM's. That late-stage boost would really really heat it up.

If it's just supposed to be a long range glide bomb without the need for IR SAM invisibility, I'd say I'm fine with the late-stage rocket assist

[hazy path]

and mitch confirmed that 76mm tarantula gun will outrange "what Lynchpin requires you to be within their range to shoot".
I believe that means beyond 7km.

@silk frost
"Is this bomb expected to have the same IR-less characteristics as the standard PAB-80LR we love?"
of course it's not. it literally fires a rocket motor on terminal stage.

[silk frost]

Respectfully, I was not asking you. Thanks

[brittle imp]

No. And I don't have to "edit wikipedia" to back me up here:
On average, about 4-6 pablos are intercepted when given the worst case scenario (low speed, entire path in elevation range, gun pre-aimed.) This goes for FGA-57 and Autosentry.
Yes the 250 has superior survivability but suffers from explosion in a group as shown by video #3. Ripple of ~300ish RPM works best.
AGM-48s do have better ability to penetrate air defence, but only if not near IR air defence. Also will get intercepted easily if launched from longer ranges.

The strength of the Pablo is its ability to be launched in a variety of circumstances, including which where aiming them is impractical. In environments where SPAAG are prevalent, any kind of slow predictable trajectory weaponry is liable to be eliminated, Pablo especially so for its low weight for better glide. There is no way to delete a convoy more convenient than to just release a batch of them and fly off with zero aiming required. If you expect them to punch through a hard counter against munitions with predictable trajectories you are using them wrong. (does this mean the bombs don't serve the user? useless right?)

[plucky cosmos]

The advantage has always been that its a middle ground between the bomb and the AGM
Like an AGM it has longer range and aims itself, its very accurate
Like a bomb its got a sufficient warhead to destroy tanks and some structures, can be carried in larger quantities, and has no IR signature

The drawbacks are its weakness to SPAAGs due to slow speed and lack of evasion.
This does not invalidate it, it just makes it less OP

Normally i prefer pablos, but 48s are more common on Chicanes and Crickets, and a mix of lynchpings and 48s can wipe the floor with defenses

[hazy path]

I think the biggest problem is SPAAG is usually the last layer of air defense to be removed, meaning that other weapons almost always became "capable" of striking a position before the pablo.

And yes, the point about pablo is its lack of IR signature so why on earth should we remove that by putting a rocket motor that fires at the wrongest of the wrongest time i.e. terminal stage?

[plucky cosmos]

Yeah i agree that rocket boosting a pablo is weird, a boost motor that discards makes some sense but terminal just dont
Youd only boost if its like a cricket too anyways so theres no reason for that to exist

[hazy path]

there is a reason why real world, modern "rocket assisted" glide bomb are always "fire first, glide during terminal". That's how you actually get the best, instead of worst, of both worlds

[plucky cosmos]

There is the small case of AShMs and cratering bombs
Iirc some russian medium cruise missiles have a discarding turbojet cruise stage and a terminal rocket

[hazy path]

well that's not a glide bomb then. it never glides and never gets the IR-free status

[plucky cosmos]

Yeah true. I mean if the target has very strong terminal defenses i see a weird niche purpose, but this is a feature for a larger cruise missile regardless

[hazy path]

the only "glide first, boost terminal" kind of glide bombs existed in WWII, when IR signature was irrelevant. Both cases are "glide after separation from aircraft and boost through AA fire, which back in the days were visually directed so speed does matter"
one of the two were the famous MXY-7 Ohka, the manned suicidal missile

And in the era when IR signature is a problem, glide bombs all became "boost first glide later" In fact some ASMs are this as well for example IIRC the Harpoon.

in fact if this suggestion was about the realistic "boost first glide later" rocket assisted glide bomb I would have supported it.

[regal schooner]

its quite a lot heavier, so less range. the rocket motor would mitigate that, and look cool

[hazy path]

that's when the rocket is fired on launch. And that's how real life rocket glide bombs work. Not the OP's suggested "fired at terminal"

[regal schooner]

firing at terminal makes sense to get past defenses

[delicate horizon]

Another suggestion someone came up with is that the rocket motor is ejected when fuel is expended.

[regal schooner]

yeah i think that makes total sense

[small mist]

Not me using normal pablos as shitty glide bombs

[hazy path]

only if your defenses is WWII level.
first of all a glide-bomb's gliding wing would limit the speed it could reach.
and tbh modern AAA/SAM can't be penetrated with sheer speed unless we're talking about mach 3+

And then you are giving your glide bombs IR signature

[delicate horizon]

We already have sabot separation for the 76mm so it shouldn’t be too difficult to model a stage separation for a bomb.

[regal schooner]

if you launch multiple, which you should, many more will get through last stage spaag

[hazy path]

then it's not fired at terminal...? ejecting rocket motor is something done by the type that fires first. the only two glide bombs fired at terminal are all fired "all the way to target"

[delicate horizon]

It doesn’t just have to be that version tho. This is literally a game where anything is possible.

[hazy path]

doesn't work. Aerocentry can take down like endless amount of pablos. my highest record was 14 shot down.

And if I am to saturate I'd rather just use normal bombs or missiles. faster and without the "worst of both worlds" problem (i.e. has IR signature of missile and speed of glide bomb)

[hazy path]

I asked OP at the very beginning. This suggestion, this entire thread is about the BS, non-existant version that fires at terminal.
Like I said, if it's about boost first then glide I'd support the idea.

[regal schooner]

does work if they are quicker at terminal stage, and you shouldnt really launch at spaag directly, but at targets around it

[delicate horizon]

Bro. Do you really have to be so damn blunt about everything?

[small mist]

Gogo gadget mach 3 pablos (possible while level bombing at high speed from high altitude with an ifrit iirc)

[hazy path]

still would have better alternatives. I really very rarely use pablo for this reason. And I don't see how a high-subsonic-at-most rocket version would change this

actually, I sometimes wonder, shouldn't pablo at least allow to fly at launch aircraft speed before we talk about rocket booster?
right now pablos decelerate to drone speed right after drop and I think that's what made them suck so much

[small mist]

I don’t think they do, at least not in my experience

[hazy path]

you don't think they do... what? they definitely do drastically decelerate after drop

[delicate horizon]

They’ve been nerfed to have high supersonic drag if I’m getting the terminology correct.

[regal schooner]

they go below mach 1

then they revert to realistic drag, pretty unhappy with the way that change was made

[small mist]

That explains it, I have only beed bombing with darkreach by way of saturation attack

[hazy path]

yeah so... how about adjust that before we talk about terminal boost...

[delicate horizon]

And honestly the way I’d use this wouldn’t even be in a standoff position. I usually play PVE so there are always a lot of convoys. I always attack the convoys with a chicane to knock out soft targets with lynchpin spam. Soft targets being any AA vehicles or any IFVs/APCs. Once they’re gone I go in with a compass with a load out of a 25mm underside gun, 6 Pablos, 4 AGM-48s, and then 2 IR missiles. If I were to be using the rocket Pablo’s in that scenario I feel they could be used to great effect against MBTs. And before you say anything about the AGM-48s, in my personal experience it’s always a 50/50 chance at a kill, while using the pablo it’s usually a 3/4.

This is how I’d personally use the rocket Pablo’s. Not to attack SAM sites from a standoff position because yes they could get knocked out by any SPAAG or R SAM or IR SAME depending on the Pablo’s altitude or if it’s in its terminal phase.

And another thing. I don’t really care for true realism in a game like this. I just think that a PAB-80 with a goddamn rocket motor would be sick af.

[plucky cosmos]

Getting kills by launching the Pablo ER so its motor ejects over an enemy aircraft and smacks their engines

[delicate horizon]

And another thing. If I’ve got this correct the rocket motor going off is based off proximity (going into its terminal phase) or due to a lack of speed. In the situation I described there’s always a close proximity to my target so it would most likely always activate after falling off the rail.

And with me possibly having to doge IR SAMs or R SAMs firing from a distance it would stand to reason that there’s a chance the pablo doesn’t have enough speed to get to its target if it’s not within range to activate its terminal phase.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that sometimes when releasing multiple Pablo’s at once a few will sometimes just completely stop in midair and just pancake onto the ground. The rocket motor would most likely immediately kick in in this scenario cuz the speed would be pretty much zero.
I will now shut the hell up about this cuz I honestly don’t see a problem with how I would use this here.

[solar crater]

GPO-250ER, is it something like AGM-62? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-62_Walleye

[solar crater]

if not, then in any case I would like to see something like this

[delicate horizon]

Interesting

That thing doesn’t have a rocket motor even though it’s labeled as an AGM. It was replaced by the AGM-65 Maverick which is basically NOs AGM-68.