Russian Helicopter ATGMs

Any russian ATGM" based on helicopter " can compete hellfire.

Any missile can compete with any other.

The Hellfire is a 152mm calibre missile carried in loads of 4 missiles to a pylon with a range of about 8km.
It has MMW radar guided versions and SALH versions.

They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

It should be pointed out that a tank low on ammo and fuel is actually hard to destroy because most anti armour weapons simply are designed to punch small holes in very very thick armour... if that penetration doesn't lead to a fire or ammo or fuel exploding then the tank is disabled but not destroyed.

Traditional Russian equivalent so far has been the ATAKA, which is a 130mm calibre missile, and in its air launched M model has a range of 8km.

Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

The ATAKA is much cheaper than the Hellfire and can be loaded in numbers of up to 8 missiles per weapon pylon, which means the Mi-28N can carry the same 16 ATGMs as the Apache but can also carry unguided rocket pods in addition to those 16 missiles.

In practical terms most of the time both helos will carry both ATGMs and rocket pods, which means the Apache will carry 8 hellfires and 38 x 70mm rockets and the Mi-28 will carry 16 Atakas and 40 x 80mm rockets.

Are 16 Atakas better than 8 Hellfires?

I would say Yes.

The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

The Atakas are about to be replaced in service by Krisantema, which will also likely have a range of 8kms, a rather higher flight speed and comparable penetration to the latest model Hellfires.
The Krisantema will be fire and forget and will likely have MMW radar homing and laser beam riding guidance options, which will allow any target to be engaged no matter what its MMW radar signature is.

Later down the track the HERMES will become available, but its 30kg warhead, terminal guidance options including SALH, GLONASS, MMW Radar, and IIR, plus a flight speed of hypersonic speed (two stage weapon with a booster burn out speed of 1.3km/s) rather put it in another league.

The HERMES will be used in fixed wing, rotary wing, and land based and sea based platforms across the services including long range 40km and 100km artillery models.

The helicopter version will have a range of between 16kms and 20kms and will be carried 4 to a pylon.

Another option of course is Kornet-EM, but I think that will mainly be for land based units due to its light weight and lower speed.

There is talk of a new ATGM system called Baikal which we know very little about, but might be a cross platform system too.

The Hermes will be for heavy attack helos like the Mi-28N/M and Ka-52, but Krisantema and to a lesser extent Kornet-EM and perhaps Baikal could be used on other helo platforms like the Mi-8/-17 or the Ka-29 assault helos and lighter helos like a military armed version of the Ka-62,and the armed version of the ANSAT, and also light to medium UCAVs.

They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

Absolutely true GarryB ,even more if we take into account that since its fist introduction the same american insiders was aware that AGM-114 Hellfire was uncapable to penetrate Soviet tanks's armor configurations operative in the same time window


This is piece of an article of Armed Forces Journal International of May 1989 ,where Army General Donn A. Starry explain in front of U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee Subcommittee on Conventional Forces and Alliance Defence, that pratically all the antitank weapons present in NATO arsenal was pratically useless against the latest armor configuration of Soviet MBT operative at the time (it say also that Soviet enjoyed a clear superiority in tank/antitank sector a superiority increasing ) .
This is the statement relevant to the topic in question :

"According to Starry the latest US antitank missiles,the TOW-2A and Hellfire,cannot pierce the latest Soviet armor configurations "

Take into account that even this analysis is conceived before the horrible discoveries coming from Manfred Held's experimental tests (confirmed successively by L. Ness for the Pentagon) on the virtual "invulnerability" of original Soviet tank specimen equiped with Kontact 5 and the new composite seven layer configuration in T-72B and T-80U; the "threat" analysed here by Gen. Starry refere instead to the 5 layer composite armour layout with K-1 ERA appliqués ,which NATO analysts of the time believed was the last Soviet MBT armour configuration !!!

Pratically Soviets at the time had already completed the works and was integrating the systems for defeat the systems that NATO was developing (among which 120 mm M829/829A1 APFSDS and TOW-2B) to attempt to defeat eastern block's armours.

Read it GarryB,it is very informing of the real situation at the time in the sector ( even more because ,usually, in internet those articles are totally obscured -often even their existence is negated !!- and when someone even only refere to them or ,worse, demonstrate to know them or show them,it is "strangely" quickly banned with the most imaginative excuses and its posts compulsively canceled....and here i talk for direct personal experience ).









Returning to the subject in question i believe that among the ATGMs optimized for helicopter employement,and excluding missiles still not widely operative or only near to introduction, 9K121 "Vikhr" represent the best ATGM (with a very very useful capability to engage also UAV,cruise missile and other low flying aerial targets ,included other helicopters) operative in russian Armed Forces , a weapon with features pratically uniques and with no equals in any competitor .
The main problem of 9K121 Vikhr ,in the same way of the President DAS ,the new UOMZ EO system and even the new adapted AESA radar, is ......that it is not certified for employement on Mi-28N !!!

I truly don't understand what is the rational behind the decision to select a platform -Mi-28N- as the mass produceable battle helicopter for Russian Army and for export market but ,at the same time, procede for R&D ,testing and integration of some of the most crucial systems for the platform selected as the the smaller scale "high-end" production -Ka50/52-; for me it is a true mystery.

GarryB wrote:Any missile can compete with any other.

The Hellfire is a 152mm calibre missile carried in loads of 4 missiles to a pylon with a range of about 8km.
It has MMW radar guided versions and SALH versions.

They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

It should be pointed out that a tank low on ammo and fuel is actually hard to destroy because most anti armour weapons simply are designed to punch small holes in very very thick armour... if that penetration doesn't lead to a fire or ammo or fuel exploding then the tank is disabled but not destroyed.

Traditional Russian equivalent so far has been the ATAKA, which is a 130mm calibre missile, and in its air launched M model has a range of 8km.

Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

The ATAKA is much cheaper than the Hellfire and can be loaded in numbers of up to 8 missiles per weapon pylon, which means the Mi-28N can carry the same 16 ATGMs as the Apache but can also carry unguided rocket pods in addition to those 16 missiles.

In practical terms most of the time both helos will carry both ATGMs and rocket pods, which means the Apache will carry 8 hellfires and 38 x 70mm rockets and the Mi-28 will carry 16 Atakas and 40 x 80mm rockets.

Are 16 Atakas better than 8 Hellfires?

I would say Yes.

The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

The Atakas are about to be replaced in service by Krisantema, which will also likely have a range of 8kms, a rather higher flight speed and comparable penetration to the latest model Hellfires.
The Krisantema will be fire and forget and will likely have MMW radar homing and laser beam riding guidance options, which will allow any target to be engaged no matter what its MMW radar signature is.

Later down the track the HERMES will become available, but its 30kg warhead, terminal guidance options including SALH, GLONASS, MMW Radar, and IIR, plus a flight speed of hypersonic speed (two stage weapon with a booster burn out speed of 1.3km/s) rather put it in another league.

The HERMES will be used in fixed wing, rotary wing, and land based and sea based platforms across the services including long range 40km and 100km artillery models.

The helicopter version will have a range of between 16kms and 20kms and will be carried 4 to a pylon.

Another option of course is Kornet-EM, but I think that will mainly be for land based units due to its light weight and lower speed.

There is talk of a new ATGM system called Baikal which we know very little about, but might be a cross platform system too.

The Hermes will be for heavy attack helos like the Mi-28N/M and Ka-52, but Krisantema and to a lesser extent Kornet-EM and perhaps Baikal could be used on other helo platforms like the Mi-8/-17 or the Ka-29 assault helos and lighter helos like a military armed version of the Ka-62,and the armed version of the ANSAT, and also light to medium UCAVs.

You convinced me,

Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

Yes, because most hels hit the upper or sides of the tank, and both hellfire and ATAKA are deadly on these points..

yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

Did they published something like that ? link plz.

I agree with Mindstorm that At-16(nato reporting name ) is agood comparable to hellfire.


About Hermes,to take the advantage of the range ,it should be used on fixed wing aircraft with the help of aground Radar ,what is the maximum range of Hermes on helicopter ? does helicopter with Hermes needs aland radar to help her finding targets ?

The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

Hellfire is supersonic also.

@Mindstorm
the article you post is valid, but you also need to look carefully at what it says.

For instance it only refers to the performance of ERA in regard to HEAT rounds, and as we know when the article was written they were putting out ERA that was effective against both HEAT and kinetic rounds.

It also mentions that an M1 firing 105mm DU rounds would have trouble with a T-72.

We know from Desert Storm a few years later the 120mm gun of the M1A1 had little trouble penetrating the export model with no ERA.

This does not refute the argument of the article as by this time the Russian equivalent vehicle would have better armour with much better ERA (AFAIK the vast majority of Iraqi vehicles were T-55s and T-62s, and T-72s with no ERA at all) and most importantly much more capable ammo.

Critically in the flat open deserts of Iraq the vehicles fitted with gun fired missiles would have been very useful in the open terrain during the day.

But there is also the facts that the AT-3 was not the best ATGM they had at that time either.

Another fact neglected is the enormous amount of anti armour weapons they actually deployed with every IFV equipped with an ATGM, and of course an abundance of RPG weapons etc etc... they (Soviets) were ready to fight tanks.

The main problem of 9K121 Vikhr ,in the same way of the President DAS ,the new UOMZ EO system and even the new adapted AESA radar, is ......that it is not certified for employement on Mi-28N !!!

It was my understanding that Vikhr wasn't adopted because it was quite expensive and the systems on the Kamov at the time did not really allow it to exploit its full range of 10km because the optics and the lack of a functioning radar system made it impossible.

I think the decision was to fit both aircraft initially with ATAKA which has a shorter range and is rather less capable than Vikhr-M in terms of penetration and speed (450m/s vs 610m/s), with the future options to include Krisantema and eventually HERMES. HERMES being a superior missile to Vikhr, with Krisantema having similar penetration to Vikhr.

I truly don't understand what is the rational behind the decision to select a platform -Mi-28N- as the mass produceable battle helicopter for Russian Army and for export market but ,at the same time, procede for R&D ,testing and integration of some of the most crucial systems for the platform selected as the the smaller scale "high-end" production -Ka50/52-; for me it is a true mystery.

Looking at the nose mounted optics sensors on the Mi-28N for the Indian competition it seems to me they are probably doing the development work but it is less public than the Kamov program.

I think the priority for Mil is to get airframes into service first as even an Mi-28N with a non operational radar is still much better in terms of performance than a bog standard Hind that it is replacing.

They seem to have decided to make some major changes to the design (Mi-28M) so I suspect they will focus on getting that developed and also at adding features and performance to existing aircraft incrementally.

Their Hinds are probably worn out and need replacing faster than they can get their Mi-28M fully ready so they are filling the gap with Mi-35Ms and not quite ready Mi-28Ns till the Mi-28M is ready in 2014-2015 or so.

Not a great situation, but no surprise considering there has been no funding to actually develop the aircraft for the last 25 years.

Yes, because most hels hit the upper or sides of the tank, and both hellfire and ATAKA are deadly on these points..

Also with the mobility of a helo you can attack from the sides or rear to maximise the effect of a hit.

Did they published something like that ? link plz.

It was a story I read on the interweb... either milphotos.net or a tank site.

This guy obviously read the same story... don't know if it is true or not... it might be an ABRAMS STRONG myth.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111102123751AAVwtDc

Certainly according to a post from Austin somewhere on here in a T-90AM thread he mentioned that Russian analysis showed that ammo stored in a turret bustle, if hit was likely to burn out and completely immobilise the vehicle (ie make the crew bail out because of the heat and burn out the turret and engine compartment)

That is why there are only 10 rounds stored in the T-90AM turret bustle and it is made small.

I agree with Mindstorm that At-16(nato reporting name ) is agood comparable to hellfire.

Certainly the AT-16 is faster at 610m/s vs 420m/s, has 1m+ armour penetration figures the same as the Hellfire, it has a range of 10km which is comparable to the Hellfires 8km.

The fire and forget capability of the (MMW)Hellfire makes it more expensive and it cannot be used on just any target... the target needs a MMW radar signature distinct enough to get a lock. To target a window in a building you would need the laser guided version.

The Vikhr is not fire and forget but is significantly faster so the flight time is reduced, and with a missile range of 10km fire and forget is not so important as you are well out of MANPAD range.

About Hermes,to take the advantage of the range ,it should be used on fixed wing aircraft with the help of aground Radar ,what is the maximum range of Hermes on helicopter ? does helicopter with Hermes needs aland radar to help her finding targets ?

The range for HERMES from a helo is given as up to 16km, and it is a two stage missile that is being unified with the SA-22 Greyhound missile of the Pantsir-S1 system.

With the new net centric environment they will be operating in ground or air units can pass target data to the helicopter platform for engagements... the helicopter itself could launch a UAV to find and mark targets with a laser beam for the SALH model, or it could determine the coordinates of a large fixed target to allow an engagement with sat guided versions of the missile. An aircraft or helo fitted with MMW radar could send coordinates and a MMW signature to a distant concealed helo to fire a MMW radar guided HERMES at the targets, or an IIR guided version could use a satellite or UAV IR image to engage the target too.

Note eventually both the Ka-52 and Mi-28M will be fitted with CM and MM Wave radar antenna for air and land targets respectively and will be able to find their own targets at long range.

Their MM wave radar will spot large targets like tanks at 10-12km and something like a bridge or building/bunker at 20-25km.

Hellfire is supersonic also.

Quite right. 420m/s. Compared with ATAKA however the ATAKAs guidance is incredibly cheap... it is a command guided missile like TOR and PANTSIR.
It uses a 35GHz radio transmitter to pass course correction signals to the missile. The link is directional and would be as difficult to jam as a MMW radar guided Hellfire.
I would expect Nakidka would make MMW radar Hellfires unusable, and SALH missile of course have the problem of alerting the enemy to an attack and of course can be defeated by popping smoke so the missiles home on the laser reflecting off the smoke rather than the target.

So ,we can say that aircrafts with fixed wings( fighters) could be preferred in the future over hels, to caryy long range ATGMs and hit from long distance and here we can avoid threats that hels face ?

To be clear , can we cancel hels from army replacing them by fighters ?

Something like replacing tanks by armoured vehicles .

Previous experience has shown that slower lower flying jets are better able to take in the situation on the ground and to better engage ground targets.

With dozens of UAVs flying around transmitting video and data to all other nodes of the network suddenly flying low and slow might not be so important, however unless the person has control of the UAV and can look where they want to look when they want to look they might not spot all threats and targets the way they would looking out of their own aircraft.

Helos and fixed wing slow jets have proven to be a good combination, there is no reason why UAVs could not be added to increase visibility, and for very well defended targets faster jets with standoff weapons could be used to take out the most capable threats to aircraft before the UAVs and slower jets and helos go in.

I think there will be lots of situations were a Helo and a jet is the right tool with UAVs assisting in finding targets and assessing the effects of attacks to decide if another attack is needed or not.

For serious targets a UCAV could be used, but while expensive and complex a helo can get to targets some aircraft cannot and they can offer combat persistance... in other words for the troops on the ground the fact that fire is coming from some one risking their necks rather than on the other side of the planet in a van means something.

When helos start falling from the skies in enormous numbers then it is perhaps time to revisit tactics.

With the new technology and weapons fitted to the Mi-28N and Ka-52 they should be much safer and more effective in combat than any of their predecessors.

What Garry said. Basically Fixed-Winged fighter-bombers aren't actually that great for the Ground Support role. They can bomb strategic targets easily, but for tactical targets (like a RPG team on a hill far away), they are practically useless (because the RPG team would of moved away when they get there). Thus, slow moving aircraft (like Helis and designated ground attack planes) that can loiter around a battlefield for long periods of time can provide quick and effective fire support for any ground forces you may have at that time.

If you've ever bought into the Call of Duty franchise you'd understand that fact more easily. An example would be the AC-130, which is basically a cargo plane retrofitted to have weapons on it's side so that it could circle around a battlefield dumping ammunition (hell, it has a 105 mm gun onboard). That really comes in handy because it can stay there for a very long time, and can provide near instant fire support.

Quite true.

A fighter bomber with sat guided bombs and laser homing bombs and missiles is basically controlled by the Air Force and will likely be based hundreds of kms from the combat zone, so attacks against fixed targets are planned before hand, and on station attacks can be called in for maybe 10-20minutes after that and then the planes go away.

For CAS like the A-10 and Su-25 they operate and are based much closer to the front line and are ten minutes or less away.

Helicopters can loiter for an hour or so and provide convoy or attack support.

With the new sat guided fuses for 152mm and larger artillery... and even more important most Russian vehicles having laser range finders and sat nav systems and the communications equipment to quickly call in air or artillery support the new Russian forces will have enormous firepower... for the first time for them DAY and NIGHT.

At 1,000 dollars a fuse they could reduce their ammo load by 20 times and still do a better job than they did even just a year ago.

I watched a program about British soldiers in Afghanistan and they mounted an attack on a village during the day time...

They positioned their vehicles on a ridge a distance away from the village in an over watch role with their 50 cal HMGs and 40mm grenade launchers trained on the village while soldiers climbed the rise and started towards the village.

When there was resistance to their attack the vehicles opened up, but one group of Brits was walking up the side of a hill that was marked with a lane cleared of IEDs and mines, but it seems one guy strayed from the path and set off an IED and was badly injured.

The whole unit completely changed their role and called in an airstrike and they turned and left the area.

Their focus changed from investigating the village to evacuating the injured guy.

About5 minutes after calling in air support a Tornado flew in and dropped a couple of 2,000lb bombs and the unit withdrew.

The IED victim was choppered out but died from his injuries on his way out.

The point is that will all their fancy NATO standard equipment and hardware and air support... their efforts didn't really seem that much different from the Soviets in the 1980s... except if it had been the Soviets the CNN reporter bringing the story would moan about the loss of life in the village because of the brutal and indiscriminate use of air power.

Seems Ataka still has some life in her yet:

During his visit to the design bureau's testing ground, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was shown samples of weapons developed by the company.

In particular, the prime minister was shown a modernised self-propelled anti-tank missile system Shturm-SM that can locate targets at night. The system is equipped with an Ataka missile with radar and laser-beam control channels, CEO and Senior Designer Valery Kashin told Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, adding that Shturm SM systems are installed on Ka-52 and Mi-28N combat helicopters and on exported Mirage boats. Official testing of this complex begins on Tuesday, Mr Kashin said, adding that the Russian army has several hundred such self-propelled anti-tank systems. "We can upgrade them during turnaround maintenance," he told the prime minister.

Dmitry Medvedev was also shown an export version of the first all-weather multi-channel self-propelled anti-tank missile system Khrizantema-SE. This system has for the first time been equipped with a radar operating in the millimetre frequency range. "What is this range for?" the prime minister asked. "It helps the azimuth station form a narrow beam to improve targeting," Valery Kashin said.

Then Prime Minister Medvedev toured the Luchnik self-propelled system. Mr Kashin said that it was designed for export and is equipped with missiles that are used in portable air defence systems (MANPADS) Igla-S, adding that Igla-S complexes are superior to their foreign counterparts due to the more advanced warheads and contact fuse. Mr Kashin said MANPADS Igla-S form the bulk of the company's revenue. "Of the total 12 billion (of revenue), eight billion come from MANPADS," he said.

Mr Kashin also reported that the Igla-S was used to develop weapon systems for Ka-52 and Mi-28N helicopters and a ship-based version of the system that is already being installed on the first batch of ships for the Caspian Flotilla.

The prime minister asked Mr Kashin and Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov about the organisation of MANPADS export control. "We have a provision in every contract that we have the right to conduct an inspection," Mr Kashin said. "Right, so as to make sure that everything is in place," Mr Medvedev said.

http://government.ru/eng/docs/19758/

So it seems that a new "system" called Shturm-SM has been developed using Ataka missiles that have radar and laser beam riding guidance... a bit like Krisantema really.

As a cheap, short range precision weapon option goes the ATAKA would be very good value for money as it is supersonic (420m/s) and does not trail wires so it can be fired from a moving platform. Accuracy is pretty good and it is not that heavy or bulky and with HE Frag warheads it could be a very useful weapon for a light UCAV or helo.

Adding radar guidance for all weather use suggests to me they have ported over the Krisantemas radio command guidance equipment to allow radar equipped helos to find targets and engage them in all weathers day or night with a cheap simple missile that is already in widespread Russian service with Army Aviation.

Against aerial targets or non armoured targets the older Ataka would be every bit as capable as the newer Krisantema... except likely cheaper. The new Krisantema adds a larger calibre HEAT warhead for better penetration performance, yet against many targets this wont be that critical a difference.

The change in the system should allow Shturm, Ataka, and Kristantema missiles to be used together by the same platform.

"This is the main difference between it and the previous Shturm-S modification," he added.

It has also been altered to allow it to be installed on air, land and sea platforms, he said.

"For this, the highly effective multi-role Ataka guided missile has been fitted with a second, laser guidance system," he said.

In other words it retains its original command guidance system and gets an additional laser guidance system... which I suspect is the same laser beam riding system used with the Krisantema. The Ataka and Shturm use a command guidance system based on a 35GHz transmitter seen on Hind gunships and the thimble nose of the Mi-28 and ships that use the system.

I suspect the ATAKA used on the BMPT prototype uses laser beam riding guidance as there is no obvious thimble guidance system.0

Such a configuration should give the system night and all weather capability assuming sensors added to the platform allow the detection and tracking of target and missile at night and all weathers. On the Mi-28 and Ka-52 that would include thermal imaging cameras and MMW radars for ground and air targets.

GarryB wrote:

"For this, the highly effective multi-role Ataka guided missile has been fitted with a second, laser guidance system," he said.

In other words it retains its original command guidance system and gets an additional laser guidance system... which I suspect is the same laser beam riding system used with the Krisantema. The Ataka and Shturm use a command guidance system based on a 35GHz transmitter seen on Hind gunships and the thimble nose of the Mi-28 and ships that use the system.

I suspect the ATAKA used on the BMPT prototype uses laser beam riding guidance as there is no obvious thimble guidance system.0

Such a configuration should give the system night and all weather capability assuming sensors added to the platform allow the detection and tracking of target and missile at night and all weathers. On the Mi-28 and Ka-52 that would include thermal imaging cameras and MMW radars for ground and air targets.

So how do you think the second laser guidance system works?

I dont have seen the ATAKAs on BMPT only the containers.

Maybe they have the same concept like they used on Hinds/havocs, an initial start via radio command and a following laser beam riding guidance, but now they maybe have an IR-homing seeker for initial start and the laser beam riding guidance as the main guidance for higher noise resistance?
Maybe im completley on the wrong way?

http://www.udm-info.ru/news/economics/31-05-2013/avihr.html

Vihr...is...back?
Presumably for Ka-52.

The final decision hasn't been made yet, however
Key point:
"production of anti-tank guided missiles "Whirlwind" will solve the financial problems of the enterprise"
"contract is not everything, but almost all of today financial problems will be solved."

Vikhr seemed to be a good missile and would be a useful cheaper missile for Helicopter and CAS aircraft use.

It would even be useful for UCAV use as it is reasonably fast at an average of 610m/s flight speed and when carried in packs of 6 per pylon for Helos and 8 per pylon for CAS aircraft it can be carried in useful numbers too.

Unlike the SA-22 based Hermes the Vikhr is a single stage missile that uses cheap and widely used laser beam riding guidance that seems to be very accurate.

Using them with Krisantema and Hermes shouldn't be an issue as they should be cheaper than HERMES, but heavier and longer ranged than Krisantema.

Of course a MMW guided fire and forget version of the missile might be quite useful too... 

Vikhr will be quite usefull ATGM for Ka-52, but maybe they will produce Vikhr-M with increased range of 15 km, which could be good solution before Hermes is available. Missile with this range could be easily used with ka-52 FCS, which include both radar and EO complex. I don't know, if Mi.28N FCS could use Vikhr too.

If they are integrating Krisantema into Mi-28N/M then it should not be a problem as Krisantema has laser beam riding guidance as a backup to MMW SARH mode.

For UCAVs a 15km range high speed missile would be useful and with long slim missiles it should be able to carry lots of them internally... or even conformally around the body of the aircraft, or in some rotary launcher... or in packs on the wings like on the Ka-52 and Su-25TM.

http://lenta.ru/news/2013/07/22/missiles/

Vihr is back! 13 billion ruble deal with Izmash, to be completed before 2015.

TR1 wrote:http://lenta.ru/news/2013/07/22/missiles/

Vihr is back! 13 billion ruble deal with Izmash, to be completed before 2015.

How many unit this amount of money could represent ?

How many unit this amount of money could represent ?

Vikhr is a very cheap and simple missile.

It only has one set of control surfaces that alternate as it rolls to give flight control and lower drag so that in use it has high flight speed (610m/s) and excellent range (up to 15km from the Su-25TM) and yet has a very heavy warhead to deal with a range of targets.

The laser beam riding guidance is much cheaper now too.

Hermes is not ready, not will it be ready for a while.

The new attack helo fleet is getting big and needs ATGMs, now.