Rocket Propelled Bombs?

[KJ_Lesnick]

They can. See MTHEL, HELLADS, Skyguard etc.

I mean before very recently...

Read the relevant section of this page (hit number two on a google search for "VB-9 bomb" ):
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/vb.html

Sorry... it was a simple question based on an observation.

[PR19_Kit]

BTW: At the penalty of sounding stupid -- why can't bombs be shot down?  I mean missiles have been shot down, and they would almost certainly produce an RCS...

They were usually smaller than the fighter, so therefore difficult to hit.

They were going like crazy.

Their trajectory was terminal to the ground so the fighter wouldn't be able to hold them in its sights for too long.

If hit the only thing they could do would be to explode which would stand a good chance of destroying the fighter.

etc. etc..............

[Hobbes]

Wasn't Sea Wolf the first SAM system capable of hitting artillery shells in flight?

[rickshaw]

Wasn't Sea Wolf the first SAM system capable of hitting artillery shells in flight?

No.  Many SAMs have that capability.  Sea Wolf was the first SAM system that could hit a 4.5in shell in flight.  Substantially smaller target than what previous SAMs could achieve at the time (early 1970s).

[KJ_Lesnick]

They were usually smaller than the fighter, so therefore difficult to hit.

Makes sense from a physical standpoint, but an object on radar doesn't correlate with physical size (there are some objects that are HUGE on radar yet very small physically), and a proximity detonation would increase the odds of a miss...

They were going like crazy.

How fast *does* a bomb go on it's way down?  And also when did the blunter bombs from WW2 get phased out with streamlined bombs?

Their trajectory was terminal to the ground so the fighter wouldn't be able to hold them in its sights for too long.

That's a good point, even for a missile shot you'd have to get a lock, pop the missile off and hope it hit before it got to the ground

If hit the only thing they could do would be to explode which would stand a good chance of destroying the fighter.

True enough, but a missile is designed to blow up...

[kerick]

Its also far more economical to shoot down the bomber than the bombs:
Bombs are in the air for only a short time, bomber can be targeted for far longer.
Bombs are cheap and missiles are expensive. War of attrition comes down to money sooner or later.
Easier to shoot down one bomber than many bombs.
Once you shoot down the bomber it doesn't come back again.

About bomb shapes:
"The primary U.S. GP bombs are the Mark 80 series. This class of weapons uses a shape known as Aero 1A, designed by Ed Heinemann of Douglas Aircraft as the result of studies in 1946. It has a length-to-diameter ratio of about 8:1, and results in minimal drag for the carrier aircraft. The Mark 80 series was not used in combat until the Vietnam War, but has since replaced most earlier GP weapons." From this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb

[KJ_Lesnick]

Its also far more economical to shoot down the bomber than the bombs:
Bombs are in the air for only a short time, bomber can be targeted for far longer.
Bombs are cheap and missiles are expensive. War of attrition comes down to money sooner or later.
Easier to shoot down one bomber than many bombs.
Once you shoot down the bomber it doesn't come back again.

True enough...

About bomb shapes: "The primary U.S. GP bombs are the Mark 80 series. This class of weapons uses a shape known as Aero 1A, designed by Ed Heinemann of Douglas Aircraft as the result of studies in 1946. It has a length-to-diameter ratio of about 8:1, and results in minimal drag for the carrier aircraft. The Mark 80 series was not used in combat until the Vietnam War, but has since replaced most earlier GP weapons." From this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb

From what I read, it was in service at some point in the 1950's though...

[GeorgeC]

BTW: At the penalty of sounding stupid -- why can't bombs be shot down?  I mean missiles have been shot down, and they would almost certainly produce an RCS...

The problem is what constitutes 'shooting down'.  Aircraft, especially before trans- and super- sonic flight, are made of light alloys stretched over flight-critical structure and filled with lots of soft stuff you don't want hit like fuel and crew.  There are lots of critical things to shoot, a lot of which are quite 'squishy', which would divert it off its intended path, render it incapable of controlled flight, or even enter a ballistic path to the ground.

A large proportion of a bomb is made up of hard case - a 4000lbs High Capacity 'cookie' was 25% by weight casing while medium capacity are about 40-50% and armour-piercing bombs 70-80%.  It is already on a ballistic path to the ground.  There is not a lot that you can do to a falling bomb to divert it from where it is going anyway unless you hit it with something really big and/or fast with huge kinetic energy, certainly larger than a machine gun bullet, small cannon round or exploding AA shell/ shrapnel.  You best hope is to disrupt the explosive and detonator inside, but this is quite hard, firstly due to the protective casing and especially on bombs which are explicitly designed to penetrate the ground or 6" of armour before detonation takes place.

'Shooting down' becomes more likely recently as most bombs have remained about 1-2000 lbs while most anti-aircraft weapons have become larger missiles.  Shooting down a 4.5" shell with a Seawolf is possible not only because you can hit it but because you hit a 20 kg shell which leaves the muzzle at Mach 3 with a missile that leaves the rail at about 80kg and Mach 3.  Guided weapons can also be 'shot down' by disabling the (squishy) control systems thus avoiding them making an accurate impact.  However, what you have really done is converted the payload back into an unguided 'bomb' of the same weight on a ballistic trajectory...               

[wuzak]

About bomb shapes:
"The primary U.S. GP bombs are the Mark 80 series. This class of weapons uses a shape known as Aero 1A, designed by Ed Heinemann of Douglas Aircraft as the result of studies in 1946. It has a length-to-diameter ratio of about 8:1, and results in minimal drag for the carrier aircraft. The Mark 80 series was not used in combat until the Vietnam War, but has since replaced most earlier GP weapons." From this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb

This sounds like the primary concern was to reduce drag for external stowage (as on most jet fighters/attack aircraft) rather than improvements in ballistics.

[strilekawk]

About bomb shapes:
"The primary U.S. GP bombs are the Mark 80 series. This class of weapons uses a shape known as Aero 1A, designed by Ed Heinemann of Douglas Aircraft as the result of studies in 1946. It has a length-to-diameter ratio of about 8:1, and results in minimal drag for the carrier aircraft. The Mark 80 series was not used in combat until the Vietnam War, but has since replaced most earlier GP weapons." From this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General-purpose_bomb

This sounds like the primary concern was to reduce drag for external stowage (as on most jet fighters/attack aircraft) rather than improvements in ballistics.

That was one consideration the other was for the new racks coming into use at the time. The TER and MER units could mount the M177 series 750 lb bomb they were flown with empty racks due to the size of the bomb body. Thankfully those were all used up during and shortly after Vietnam. The final reason for the Mk80 series weapons was comonality, which was one time McNamara's "Wiz Kids" got something right.

As for rocket propelled bombs, the last one fielded by the US was the Navy's AGM-123 Skipper which had two motors on the back of a Mk 83 1000 lb warhead with a Paveway guidance kit. It was intended as an anti-ship missile but it had a secondary mission of destroying hardened sites. During my time as an Aviation Ordnanceman I never had the chance to handle one but based on the Paveways I did put together this had to have been a beast with motors to attach.

[KJ_Lesnick]

The problem is what constitutes 'shooting down'.

In terms of projectiles -- blowing them up or knocking them significantly off course.

With aircraft, the term is as normal

A large proportion of a bomb is made up of hard case - a 4000lbs High Capacity 'cookie' was 25% by weight casing while medium capacity are about 40-50% and armour-piercing bombs 70-80%.  It is already on a ballistic path to the ground.  There is not a lot that you can do to a falling bomb to divert it from where it is going anyway unless you hit it with something really big and/or fast with huge kinetic energy, certainly larger than a machine gun bullet, small cannon round or exploding AA shell/ shrapnel.  You best hope is to disrupt the explosive and detonator inside, but this is quite hard, firstly due to the protective casing and especially on bombs which are explicitly designed to penetrate the ground or 6" of armour before detonation takes place.

Good point but wouldn't the casing be hardest at the front and weakest on the sides and back?  I figure if it would be hit, it would likely be hit from the sides...

'Shooting down' becomes more likely recently as most bombs have remained about 1-2000 lbs while most anti-aircraft weapons have become larger missiles.  Shooting down a 4.5" shell with a Seawolf is possible not only because you can hit it but because you hit a 20 kg shell which leaves the muzzle at Mach 3 with a missile that leaves the rail at about 80kg and Mach 3.  Guided weapons can also be 'shot down' by disabling the (squishy) control systems thus avoiding them making an accurate impact.

Correct which would sometimes be all you'd need

However, what you have really done is converted the payload back into an unguided 'bomb' of the same weight on a ballistic trajectory...

Even if the missile blew it all up?

[sandiego89]

......The TER and MER units could mount the M177 series 750 lb bomb they were flown with empty racks due to the size of the bomb body. Thankfully those were all used up during and shortly after Vietnam....

Actually bunches of the 750 pound 117's were around for decades after Vietnam.  Over 44,000 of them were dropped in Gulf War 1 from B-52G's.  I had some buddies on Guam when the 117's were rolled out of igloos and many were covered in moss- but were still deemed fit for spreading democracy over the region.  The "highlight" of their experience was when a crane dropped a pallet on 117's (no fuses) from about 30 feet onto pier during loading on a ship.

Source: available on google books Persian Gulf War Encyclopedia: A Political, Social, and Military History page 274.

[DarrenP2]

isn't Skipper a rocket propelled paveway system?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Well, an air-to-ground missile is effectively an explosive warhead (which is effectively a bomb) with a guidance-system of sorts, and some method of maneuvering the missile (fins, thrust vectoring, both)