isn't as cheap as you think.

 

The Zuni actually offers little to recommend it in the role being too SHORT RANGED. 

Can't you get past the part of MBDA that's French and focus on the goodness of Elbit, Honeywell, and General Dynamics in that recipe?

(mind you though, I'd be happier if it was Raytheon or ATK rather than General Dynamics...)

 

I have yet to find anything even remotely pointing to a price per,

but like I mentioned: Hellfire isn't cleared for transonic aircraft in a multi-shot launcher (like the quad rail used on helos).

 

Though I haven't the foggiest of how many Zuni components are still in USMC and USN inventory

(any? why else would they do this?),

I would think it a totally pointless program if it weren't for the fact its LAU-10 pods can be hung from F/A-18s (and most likely, USMC AH-1Z's).

Certainly it would, ideally, come cheaper than a built-from-the-ground-up precision munition like Hellfire, or else it would end up being a one-trick (two service?) pony.

 

Range too short?

Not really sure that might matter in this instance (my suggestion of it as CAS weapon).

Though dated, the best entry I found was at Designation-Systems.Net....

That article suggests with the Mk16 motor a range of 8km (5 miles).

 

Like I mentioned beforehand: for a pilot who wants at least a minimal by-his-own-eyesight confirmation of the target,

this would be a better option at a good many targets moreso than cannon fire (20mm Vulcan).

Just like many air-launched munitions, I'm sure the range is much dependent on the launch platform's release altitude and speed.

 

It's not like many helicopters always fire their Hellfire from only the extreme outer edge of its range,

as quite often, it is the firing helo that's lasing the intended target (ditto for some UAV engagements),

so the person pulling the trigger certainly wants more positive target confirmation than just someone calling up on the radio, saying "we need you to fire a missile at these coordinates; we'll worry about designating at this end, just fire one in this direction and let us worry about what it hits."

 

Still, the Designation-Systems.Net entry... suggests 9km for the AGM-114K and -L models, not really a quantum leap out there from a Zuni at 8km (don't quote me on it, but I think I read somewhere that the latest Hellfires reach closer to 8 miles than 8km, or maybe it was 10 miles...).

 

So no offense, but I fail to see that a guided Zuni offers more a step in the wrong direction.

Though I don't know the actually warhead weights (various, it says),

piecing together bits here and there suggests the Zuni is going to weight at close to 125 pounds at maximum

with the WGU-58/B attached.

Weight-wise, yes it is comparable to Hellfire.

But being podded and with flip-out fins aft rather than the Hellfire's fixed wings, the 4 Zunis inside the 4-round LAU-10 are going to take up less physical volume overall,

plus is more aerodynamic anyway to better suit combat jets, rather than the quad launcher used from helicopters with all its inherent drag at higher speeds.

 

Seems like it would be a waste just for creating an enhanced precision training system.

Another article on it is at the bottom of this article from DefenseIndus..., (green text with the pic of the Hornet firing).

 

Benefit of laser guidance means better chance to abort if friendlies are nearby, unlike GPS-guided munitions that at worst could have the wrong numbers input for the target. And I don't even know if there's any midcoure update capability in a lot of GPS-guided munitions, allowing them to be either rendered inert/disarmed or redirected along the way to avoid friendlies killed if the coordinates weren't entered properly.

For a laser-guided munition, just aim the designator somewhere away from harming friendlies or noncombatants.

 

Suggesting it's too short in range works equally against a number of the Hellfire models, then.

Issues of costs being high due to complexity of the system is unknown to me (can't find any solid/suggested price quotes).

I'm interested in that WGU-58/B guidance and control mechanism....

This program was just a USMC method and an outright  madness to use up Zunis still left over from Korea and Vietnam.

 

MBDA does leave a sour taste in my mouth. Those idiots ruined MATRA. They know as much about rockets as DCN does about aircraft carriers.

 

Herald 

Didn't really understand your disdain for MBDA.

 

As for Hydra series versus Zuni:

There isn't piss for reliable info online for bigger aircraft rockets like there is for the various 70mm families.

 

Thing I was looking at was sheer warhead throw-weight: I've seen various bits of 70mm rocket articles suggesting variations offering ranges exceeding 12km, and warheads pushing 10kg (depends just how long a rocket you'll accept).

 

The best I found on Zuni (not being home and having access to books), was mention of a 20kg warhead in the Designation-Systems.Net's entry on the 5" aircraft rockets.

It mentioned it was for an earlier pre-Zuni (Holy Moses?), but for the chart on Zunis only lists "various" for warheads with no actual data given.

 

I'd like to think any 5" rocket has potential to move a heavier payload than any rocket of barely half that diameter (70mm versus ~130mm).

Can current Zuni configs do that?

Maybe, hard to tell without an actual chart showing all the parts involved (motors, warheads).

 

Are Zunis even still manufactured, or just stockpiled leftovers like you mentioned?

Can't answer that one myself, either.

Was this just a tech demo for developing a system for something else, rater than for a production run for the actually Zuni?

Certainly possible.

 

But if the tech can be done to rapidly convert unguided rockets into precision weapons, even if only slightly cheaper than a full-fledged missile but still able to maintain a useful range and payload, somebody somewhere is going to pony up and buy it.

 

The other notion to consider: SDB is around 16-17cm in diameter, IIRC.

Designing a guidance and control system that can fit a smaller body (13cm) means a smaller PGM.

That could be a goal here: develop yet another promising lightweight PGM that can be deployed in larger numbers from UAVs that aren't known to be heavy-payload bomb trucks.

 

Question is, how small a warhead are we willing to go that can still damage a good variety of targets.

I've these Army videos  and pictures showing us what just 2 pounds of explosives packed inside a bicycle frame can do right next to a car and wooden mannequins, not pretty.

 

But an issue there is, without the proper wing layout, a small munition isn't going very far if it doesn't have a good glide.

Also on that, like BAE found out with their funky APKWS laser sensor arrangement: the smaller the seeker/sensor is, the shorter its acquisition range, not necessarily a good thing.

 

Yeah, I can take this Zuni development with the grain of salt that it's not outright intended to modify every/any remaining Zuni rockets into a poorman's Hellfire, as certainly the potential is there to incorporate that tech into something else of a similar size (something similar to Hellfire but suitable for fast jets...didn't the UK's Brimstone mmwave Hellfire clone get axed, too?).

 

But there again, as of late, the US seems to enjoy throwing away a lot of the tech it's spent booku bucks on developing, solely to satiate the budget-cutting axes of leaders hungry to look good trimming budgets (some of whom who, sadly, only apparently supported the troops only long enough to get re/elected, but now spit in their faces by cancelling new equipment).

Last thing we need is another weapon with promising potential that gets written off instead of into the hands of the fighting men and women who could make the most of its capabilities.

 

Just how cheap to we have to make this stuff to get it procured, but so it' still safe enough to actually use and will reliably function under the conditions that modern warfare entails?