Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

Oh, I forgot to add....there was even suggestions to discontinue the development of smaller sat-guided bombs because the SVP-24 made them redundant from a cost prespective....hopefully such stupid ideas have been quashed

Well, satellite guided bombs are absolutely incapable to hit anything moving or better said they are not intended to hit anything only to come the closer possible to given coordinates, regardless of what is in there, so the example of the sniper scope just doesn't fit well.

You are clearly not understanding what I said.

The sniper scope description describes the Gefest and T system using dumb unguided bombs only

The SVP-24 is a ballistics program that takes the flight characteristics of the aircraft platform (ie speed and altitude) etc etc and the ballistic profile of the weapon selected (ie dumb FAB-250M52 bomb) and generates an aim point in the HUD showing the pilot where the bomb will impact the ground in real time. Any manouver the pilot makes the aim point will adjust the impact point so the pilot can manouver the aircraft so the impact point pipper is on the target and press the button on his control stick to drop the bomb. the pilot is then free to manouver with the bomb falling to the calculated aim point with no further input from anything.

If you had a satellite guided bomb you could use a much less accurate form of bomb aiming from higher altitude and just let the bombs guidance and control fins do all the work.

Same with laser or TV guided bombs or missiles.

The SV-24 needs to know the ballistic characteristics of the bomb or missile selected so it can accurately calculate the impact point before release, but could be used for all sorts of unguided ordinance giving a level of precision unguided munitions don't normal have.

Russia has a large array of guided weapon, with a lot of different and often modular guidance systems, it is just the sat/guided that really doesn't fit well for their doctrine, while in the West, well, better say Usa above all is something absolutely essential in about virtually any new type of weapon.

Of course satellite guided weapons are useful to Russia... now that they have invested and spent an enormous amount of money on new satellites and GLONASS and recon platforms including UAVs and aircraft with EO targeting systems why would they not also spend a little more making satellite guided bombs... which are relatively cheap?

.their selling point was that it delivers similar performance to 1st generation PGM's (under good conditions I would imagine)

Their actual selling point is that for the price of the upgrade you get guided performance from cheap dumb weapons already produced and in storage ready for use...

Oh, I forgot to add....there was even suggestions to discontinue the development of smaller sat-guided bombs because the SVP-24 made them redundant from a cost prespective....hopefully such stupid ideas have been quashed

If they can get the same levels of accuracy with cheap dumb bombs why bother with more expensive less accurate weapons?

Having said that smaller weapons need to be more accurate to be effective.

Cyberspec wrote:
There was a discussion about the Gefest SVP-24 on the Runet a few years back (I didn't save it )

What is the US/NATO equivalent of the SVP -24? Any idea. Thanks.

jhelb wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:
There was a discussion about the Gefest SVP-24 on the Runet a few years back (I didn't save it )

What is the US/NATO  equivalent of the SVP -24? Any idea. Thanks.

LANTIRN

artjomh wrote:LANTIRN

So basically it is similar to THALES Damocles or the Israeli Litening, right?

IIRC, the Su 34 & Su 35 uses the Damocles, however, the UOMZ Sapsan can be used to replace them.

jhelb wrote:

artjomh wrote:LANTIRN

So basically it is similar to THALES Damocles or the Israeli Litening, right?

IIRC, the Su 34 & Su 35 uses the Damocles, however, the UOMZ Sapsan can be used to replace them.

Su-34 uses integrated targeting FLIR called Platan.

Su-35 uses Damocles and potentially Sapsan, but Sapsan is pretty virtual at this moment and doesn't exist as a real thing yet (or ever).

artjomh wrote:

jhelb wrote:

artjomh wrote:LANTIRN

So basically it is similar to THALES Damocles or the Israeli Litening, right?

IIRC, the Su 34 & Su 35 uses the Damocles, however, the UOMZ Sapsan can be used to replace them.

Su-34 uses integrated targeting FLIR called Platan.

Su-35 uses Damocles and potentially Sapsan, but Sapsan is pretty virtual at this moment and doesn't exist as a real thing yet (or ever).

As I know RuAF doesn't use any targeting pod yet. Su-34 have Platan complex inside its body, so no need for pods, while the rest are most probably waiting for the new targeting pod we have seen to be tested on MiG-35. Su-30 and Su-35 could as well use their OLS-30 or OLS-35 for ground attacks, but only with missiles as it looks only forward with small angle of negative elevation.

Most Russian and Soviet dedicated ground attack aircraft have had dedicated EO systems built into them and therefore have not actually needed targeting pods like western aircraft do.

The MiG-27K/M, the Su-22M4, Su-25T/TM, Su-24, Su-34, MiG-29M/SMT/M2/ MiG-35, Su-35 all have built in EO systems able to be used for targeting ground targets on their own.

External pods have been seen for the MiG-35 and MiG-29M2 and there has been talk of Damocles for export Su-35s and talk the Russian AF wanted them too, but the targeting pods for PAK FA don't look like damocles and nor do the ones for the new MiGs... so I suspect they are developing their own targeting pods.

jhelb wrote:What is the US/NATO equivalent of the SVP -24? Any idea. Thanks.

No exact western equivalent exist at today among foreign Air Force of СВП-24 and the same notion that any kind of podded targeting system ,even the most up-to-date ones such as Sniper, could provide the features offered by a fully integral and aircraft model customized multi-system product with navigation, search/tracking, flight guidance ,weapon aim/delivery monitoring, correction and control entirely linked to gyros ,accelerometers placed in various spot on the frame and to ad-hoc CPUs optimized for specific data processing algorithms such as СВП-24 , is inherently wronged .


It is simply impossible to "equip" an aircraft of choice with СВП-24 , as done with a tracking pod; a СВП-24 conversion must be developed and tested in advance for a specific aircraft model taking into account its unique aerodynamic responsiveness at different altitude, under any banking sollicitation, with any environmental condition and all of that with each model of unguided munition employable by this specific aircraft ; the conversion require at least two weeks of full work for an aircraft such as Su-24M and missions require previous  input from ground complex preparation and flight control ,but one can remain assured that a comparative bombing mission between a foreign aircraft equiped with Mark 83 bombs and the latest Sniper pod and an old Su-24M with FAB-500 and СВП-24 would turn ,very quickly ,humbling for the former.

I repeat one more time: the greater operational benefit offered by a system like СВП-24 ,outside the obvious economic one, is the capability to mostly circumvent enemy up-to-date ECM countermeasures (in particular advanced satellite uplink point jamming) that would transform, in a conflict between evoluted opponents, a GBU-39 in a small, almost uncorrected, bomb with only 17 kg of ineffective DIME explosive, totally incapable to engage and destroy ,even if delivered in enormous amount, the most trivial enemy installation.

In the same identical conditions a single FAB-500 delivered by a СВП-24 equiped aircraft would accomplish the mission......for kopek.

[quote="marcellogo"]

GarryB wrote:

Well, satellite guided bombs are absolutely incapable to hit anything moving or better said they are not intended to hit anything only to come the closer possible to given coordinates, regardless of what is in there, so the example of the sniper scope just doesn't fit well.

You are clearly not understanding what I said.

The sniper scope description describes the Gefest and T system using dumb unguided bombs only

The SVP-24 is a ballistics program that takes the flight characteristics of the aircraft platform (ie speed and altitude) etc etc and the ballistic profile of the weapon selected (ie dumb FAB-250M52 bomb) and generates an aim point in the HUD showing the pilot where the bomb will impact the ground in real time. Any manouver the pilot makes the aim point will adjust the impact point so the pilot can manouver the aircraft so the impact point pipper is on the target and press the button on his control stick to drop the bomb. the pilot is then free to manouver with the bomb falling to the calculated aim point with no further input from anything.

If you had a satellite guided bomb you could use a much less accurate form of bomb aiming from higher altitude and just let the bombs guidance and control fins do all the work.

Same with laser or TV guided bombs or missiles.

The SV-24 needs to know the ballistic characteristics of the bomb or missile selected so it can accurately calculate the impact point before release, but could be used for all sorts of unguided ordinance giving a level of precision unguided munitions don't normal have.

Russia has a large array of guided weapon, with a lot of different and often modular guidance systems, it is just the sat/guided that really doesn't fit well for their doctrine, while in the West, well, better say Usa above all is something absolutely essential in about virtually any new type of weapon.

Of course satellite guided weapons are useful to Russia... now that they have invested and spent an enormous amount of money on new satellites and GLONASS and recon platforms including UAVs and aircraft with EO targeting systems why would they not also spend a little more making satellite guided bombs... which are relatively cheap?

If they can get the same levels of accuracy with cheap dumb bombs why bother with more expensive less accurate weapons?

Having said that smaller weapons need to be more accurate to be effective.

Seems that I have not been able to make you understand the point I want to make, so l'll point it further.
I-m not saying that they wouldn't use GLONASS bomb at all, just that they wouldn't convert all their existing bombs with JDAMSlike kit like the NATO has for the good reason you yourself have pointed i.e. if precision is more or less the same why made such an extensive and costly adaptation?
Also because they can convert just the MK62 and -T low drag series for this.

They have acquired just an handful of KAB-500S bomb and they would acquire KAB-250SR for the future, probably in major numbers but it would be just one of their many tools, to be used,  when their own advantage would match the intended mission better that all the others, exactly like they do with all the others weapon they are actually using.

Operatively it got a lot of sense, logistically is half of a nightmare.
For the West the opposite apply.
What of the two is better? I'll be very superb if I would pretend to gave a definitive answer to such a question.
Time will tell.

GarryB wrote:Most Russian and Soviet dedicated ground attack aircraft have had dedicated EO systems built into them and therefore have not actually needed targeting pods like western aircraft do.

The MiG-27K/M, the Su-22M4, Su-25T/TM, Su-24, Su-34, MiG-29M/SMT/M2/ MiG-35, Su-35 all have built in EO systems able to be used for targeting ground targets on their own.

External pods have been seen for the MiG-35 and MiG-29M2 and there has been talk of Damocles for export Su-35s and talk the Russian AF wanted them too, but the targeting pods for PAK FA don't look like damocles and nor do the ones for the new MiGs... so I suspect they are developing their own targeting pods.

Well, this simply highlight one of the main difference between dedicated strike planes and adapted fighter.

It was the same for NATO ones until TORNADO (and AMX) but after it, accountants took the lead over strategist:cry:.

Good images of some of the KAB-1500LG family members http://bastion-karpenko.ru/kab-1500lg/

I-m not saying that they wouldn't use GLONASS bomb at all, just that they wouldn't convert all their existing bombs with JDAMSlike kit like the NATO has for the good reason you yourself have pointed i.e. if precision is more or less the same why made such an extensive and costly adaptation?

What do you mean convert?

Russian bombs have an explosive section with a tail structure that is added and in the case of guided bombs like the KAB-1,500 a guidance section in the nose but they are not modular.

You can't just fit a satellite guidance nose and tail control section to a standard FAB-500M62 bomb and make it a KAB-500.

Satellite bombs and Laser or IIR guided bombs and missiles are made that way... they don't come in bomb kits that are attached to bombs of various sizes.

the existing stock of dumb bombs is available to the Russian AF and future production make sense because they are cheap and effective with modern aircraft with SV-24 and related upgrades.

Operatively it got a lot of sense, logistically is half of a nightmare.

Operationally the current stocks of dumb unguided bombs are now much more effective and useful and don't need any more money spent on them to make them so.

For the West the opposite apply.
What of the two is better? I'll be very superb if I would pretend to gave a definitive answer to such a question.
Time will tell.

For the west they have large stocks of cheap dumb bombs but they need to produce upgrade guidance kits for each bomb to make it accurate and effective... sounds like someone is going to make a lot of money there... so their stocks of bombs they already paid for they have to pay again to make them accurate enough to actually use... doesn't sound like a great idea.

If we go back to the sniper analogy... instead of training a sniper to expert level and giving him a capable rifle and powerful and flexible scope you are just giving grunts guided rounds... which just makes the ammo more expensive... you do use less rounds but they do cost more... with SV-24 you use less rounds and you don't spend any extra on them...

Mindstorm wrote:I repeat one more time: the greater operational benefit offered by a system like СВП-24 ,outside the obvious economic one, is the capability to mostly circumvent enemy up-to-date ECM countermeasures (in particular advanced satellite uplink point jamming) that would transform, in a conflict between evoluted opponents

In that case does it not make sense to replace the Damocles in the Su-35 with a targetting system similar to SVP-24? Because Damocles may be vulnerable to the enemy ECM.

Also why is there no export variant of SVP-24? It will work wonders for several Air Forces the world over who do not have guided bombs and therefore rely on un guided bombs.

jhelb wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:I repeat one more time: the greater operational benefit offered by a system like СВП-24 ,outside the obvious economic one, is the capability to mostly circumvent enemy up-to-date ECM countermeasures (in particular advanced satellite uplink point jamming) that would transform, in a conflict between evoluted opponents

In that case does it not make sense to replace the Damocles in the Su-35 with a targetting system similar to SVP-24? Because Damocles may be vulnerable to the enemy ECM.

Also why is there no export variant of SVP-24? It will work wonders for several Air Forces the world over who do not have guided bombs and therefore rely on un guided bombs.

Su-35 already have similar capabilities as SVP-24 with satellite navigation, modern FCS computers, data link network and connected with multimode radar and IRST. Targeting pod is meant to guide laser guided bombs ant to monitor targets under the plane.

The Gefest & T company makes the system and they have versions for most Soviet aircraft that could use them AFAIK... there are models for the Su-25 Su-24, Tu-22M3 etc etc... I am sure they could develop models for other former soviet aircraft like the MiG-29 and MiG-21/-23 and other aircraft that attack ground targets with dumb bombs and rockets.

I would suspect the effect on accuracy of weapons like the S-24 unguided rocket would be significant and they are such potent rockets with their 125kg HE warheads would pack significant wallop at the target end.

AFAIK the Algerian Su-24s had the Gefest & T upgrades applied to them already so they have already been exported...

medo wrote:Su-35 already have similar capabilities as SVP-24 with satellite navigation, modern FCS computers, data link network and connected with multimode radar and IRST.

Probably you mean Su-34, in this case you have reason : the aircraft in question is designed with an in-built avionic systems for surveillance, tracking and computing of delivered munition impact point, fully integrated with the aircraft AFSS allowing performances even superior to СВП-24 ; but here we talk of an unique instance among Federation's air fleet.


If instead you truly mean Su-35S ,the point is off the mark; the systems constituting СВП-24, in order to achieve its boasted (and now operationally validated) level of mean deviation from computed impact point for unguided munitions require a carrying platform with aerodynamic layout allowing very uncommon level of flight stability in dense air and turbulence (very low to medium low altitude).


It is not a chance that СВП-24 has been exclusively and purposely developed for aircraft boasting impressive flight characteristic in dense layers and turbulence : the CAS optimized Su-25 and the variable wing geometry equipped Su-24M and Tu-22M.

jhelb wrote:In that case does it not make sense to replace the Damocles in the Su-35 with a targetting system similar to SVP-24? Because Damocles may be vulnerable to the enemy ECM.

1) Read up in regard to a СВП-24-like system for an aircraft such as Su-35S

2) OLS-35 show already an extensive air to ground mode; therefore the employment of a dedicated pod would mostly be dictated by expanded FoV and target damage assessment requirements, both of which will be less than essential taking into account the kind of air to ground munition that would be mostly employed by Su-35S in this role.

3) The problem here do not lie in ECM systems capable to twart at tactical/startegic level aircraft optical locating systems or tracking pods (unless obviously we do not take into accounts systems such as TDA-2K conceived to protect very wide area or large moving ground formations from radar and thermal scanning/targeting and against terrain following/matching guidance of modern cruise missiles and stand-off PGM......but here we talk of an unique system with few ,if any, equivalent in Army's arsenal anywhere at world) ,instead the problem lie in the technical approach selected by western nations, in particular US, and domestic in dealing with the problem to increase the precision of the huge stock of cheap unguided munitions at an acceptable level and within acceptable economic boundaries.
The foreign approach (of which exist also a tested and improved equivalent by part of ОАО "Базальт“») was to mount a correction kit, on the basis of in-flight GPS provided positional update, on each single formerly unguided bomb; this approach "produced" JDAM, a relatively cheap weapon with a level of CEP surely not on par with laser, TV or IR homing PGMs , but employable in permissive environment , against unsophisticated enemies in quantity order of magnitude greater than ,at example, Paveway series.
Obviously that approach to mass employable precise weapons become vulnerable against a sophisticated enemy ECM (in particular satellite up-link severing after the bomb has been delivered).
On the other side instead, an unguided bomb delivered with enough "precision" toward an impact point thanks to СВП-24 would be totally immune to local ECM and only the direct destruction of the munition in flight, at example with systems such as Pantsyr-S or Thor-M2, could prevent the destruction of the intended target.

Mindstorm wrote:

medo wrote:Su-35 already have similar capabilities as SVP-24 with satellite navigation, modern FCS computers, data link network and connected with multimode radar and IRST.

Probably you mean Su-34, in this case you have reason : the aircraft in question is designed with an in-built avionic systems for surveillance, tracking and computing of delivered munition impact point, fully integrated with the aircraft AFSS allowing performances even superior to СВП-24 ; but here we talk of an unique instance among Federation's air fleet.


If instead you truly mean Su-35S ,the point is off the mark; the systems constituting СВП-24, in order to achieve its boasted (and now operationally validated) level of mean deviation from computed impact point for unguided munitions require a carrying platform with aerodynamic layout allowing very uncommon level of flight stability in dense air and turbulence (very low to medium low altitude).


It is not a chance that СВП-24 has been exclusively and purposely developed for aircraft boasting impressive flight characteristic in dense layers and turbulence : the CAS optimized Su-25 and the variable wing geometry equipped Su-24M and Tu-22M.  

jhelb wrote:In that case does it not make sense to replace the Damocles in the Su-35 with a targetting system similar to SVP-24? Because Damocles may be vulnerable to the enemy ECM.

1) Read up in regard to a СВП-24-like system for an aircraft such as Su-35S  

2) OLS-35 show already an extensive air to ground mode; therefore the employment of a dedicated pod would mostly be dictated by expanded FoV and target damage assessment requirements, both of which will be less than essential taking into account the kind of air to ground munition that would be mostly employed by Su-35S in this role.

3) The problem here do not lie in ECM systems capable to twart at tactical/startegic level aircraft optical locating systems or tracking pods (unless obviously we do not take into accounts systems such as TDA-2K conceived to protect very wide area or large moving ground formations from radar and thermal scanning/targeting and against terrain following/matching guidance of modern cruise missiles and stand-off PGM......but here we talk of an unique system with few ,if any, equivalent in Army's arsenal anywhere at world) ,instead the problem lie in the technical approach selected by western nations, in particular US, and domestic in dealing with the problem to increase the precision of the huge stock of cheap unguided munitions at an acceptable level and within acceptable economic boundaries.
The foreign approach (of which exist also a tested and improved equivalent by part of ОАО "Базальт“») was to mount a correction kit, on the basis of in-flight GPS provided positional update, on each single formerly unguided bomb; this approach "produced" JDAM, a relatively cheap weapon with a level of CEP surely not on par with laser, TV or IR homing PGMs , but employable in permissive environment , against unsophisticated enemies in quantity order of magnitude greater than ,at example, Paveway series.
Obviously that approach to mass employable precise weapons become vulnerable against a sophisticated enemy ECM (in particular satellite up-link severing after the bomb has been delivered).
On the other side instead, an unguided bomb delivered with enough "precision" toward an impact point thanks to СВП-24 would be totally immune to local ECM and only the direct destruction of the munition in flight, at example with systems such as Pantsyr-S or Thor-M2, could prevent the destruction of the intended target.

For people who aren't aware of the system 'TDA-2K', he's talking about the electro-magnetic spectrum opaque-aerosol cloud forming generator:

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150823/1026094195/russia-army-concealment-technology.html





Expect to see TDA-2K's on Armata chassis soon enough...


...BTW Mindstorm I have a question, it's a bit off-topic, but speaking about TDA-2K, is it true that when the Mig 1.44 and subsequently the Su-47 was in development, they decided against using flat-nozzles (as seen on a F-22A Raptor) and decided to use a system similar to TDA-2K, to form a EM-spectrum aersol to mask the Mig 1.44/Su-47's IR signature?

For people who aren't aware of what I'm talking about, credit to Paralay forums:

Mindstorm wrote:On the other side instead, an unguided bomb delivered with enough "precision" toward an impact point thanks to СВП-24 would be totally immune to local ECM and only the direct destruction of the munition in flight, at example with systems such as Pantsyr-S or Thor-M2, could prevent the destruction of the intended target.

But why can't SVP 24 be jammed? If the enemy has lets say a system like Krasukha it can effectively jam SVP 24.

That aside there will be airborne jamming aircraft like Growler apart from AWACS that can be utilized to jam SVP 24.

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:On the other side instead, an unguided bomb delivered with enough "precision" toward an impact point thanks to СВП-24 would be totally immune to local ECM and only the direct destruction of the munition in flight, at example with systems such as Pantsyr-S or Thor-M2, could prevent the destruction of the intended target.

But why can't SVP 24 be jammed? If the enemy has lets say a system like Krasukha it can effectively jam SVP 24.

That aside there will be airborne jamming aircraft like Growler apart from AWACS that can be utilized to jam SVP 24.

You can always check the brochure.

What is to jam?

the aircraft carrying the system has GLONASS navigation but also Inertial nav if Glonass is jammed, but the actual location of the target... ie its coordinates are not relevant.

the SV-24 just puts a bomb impact point in the HUD based on the flight speed and angle of the aircraft and the aerodynamics of the weapon selected based on internal calculations.

think of the range finding stadia on a PSO-1 scope except instead of manually working out range and wind and then turning the range clicks on the turret it is all done automatically... but jamming wont interfere with the process because there is nothing to jam... it does not send a signal to guide the bomb and once the bomb or missile is released there is no further interaction.

x_54_u43 wrote:You can always check the brochure.

Appreciate the insights. Unfortunately I cannot read Russian. I work for military contractors & I work with EW.

I am not sure if words in a picture can be translated. So,if you could shed some light(in English) on what those brochures have to say I will be glad to reply.

RTN wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:On the other side instead, an unguided bomb delivered with enough "precision" toward an impact point thanks to СВП-24 would be totally immune to local ECM and only the direct destruction of the munition in flight, at example with systems such as Pantsyr-S or Thor-M2, could prevent the destruction of the intended target.

But why can't SVP 24 be jammed? If the enemy has lets say a system like Krasukha it can effectively jam SVP 24.

That aside there will be airborne jamming aircraft like Growler apart from AWACS that can be utilized to jam SVP 24.

Красуха-4 would jam without any problem both the GLONASS and terrain following/SAR navigation radar of any incoming aircraft or PGM (and, to be fair, at the range where it could jam the navigation radar of a low flying СВП-24-equipped Su-24M it could do much much worse than merely jam those navigation components....); a squadron of Growlers could do nothing to severe the link to the GLONASS positional update and if those Growlers was in a range useful at jam the Su-24M navigation radar -anyhow a very difficult task for an airborne jamming pod for mere geometrical reasons- the delivery of an AIM-9X could do much better, admitting of course that those would overcome the DCA screen of air superiority aircraft that would likely accompain them.

In any instance not even the former would be capable to fully prevent СВП-24 from computing the relative position of the carrying aircraft in respect to the intended target for precision weapon delivery; in facts the system allow also the matching of positional television data from KПНС-24М (Кайра-24 subsystem) with an electronic map of the area, therefore ,even if at a sensible slower pace, the precise delivery of the payload on the target couldn't be prevented.

Su-34 with two KAB-1500LG.

Mindstorm wrote:In any instance not even the former would be capable to fully prevent СВП-24 from computing the relative position of the carrying aircraft in respect to the intended target for precision weapon delivery;

My vote. I think the Russian military should come up with a version of the SVP 24 for the Army so that unguided artillery shells can be easily converted to guided shells for a fraction of the price.

The Russian Army has the largest stockpile of unguided shells and a SVP 24 for the army will be of great use.