Precision Guided Munitions in RuAF

You guys are arguing about nothing and something we cannot get full details about. Russia does have dual signal bombs (GPS/GLONASS) guided bombs for reasons beyond me really (other than export potential and high accuracy at beginning of conflict before signals for GPS drops by US command.

As well, we are fully unaware of Russia's stockpiles. Most speculated they didn't have enough kalibr missiles but they are proven wrong by Russia's use of them in Syria. Even Russia recently launched cruise missiles in Syria and not much was mentioned about it.

And yes, for Russia's campaign in Syria, there is little to no point in using guided munitions when Russia's stockpile of dumb bombs are probably so massive it's unbelievable and using Gefast & T upgrade gives it near similar (still not as accurate) as these other guided munitions.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Emm....no. Russian satelite guided bombs at this moment use two band reciever Kompas PSN-2001 for both GPS and Glonass.

And to my knowledge Russia did not use any satelite guided bombs in 2008.

Yeah... my radio gets an enormous range of frequencies too.

GPS is a US system that is very restricted in its civilian version... it has serious altitude and speed limitations that makes it pretty much useless most of the time for weapons guidance... and that is for a reason.

In times of conflict such channels are normally turned off or scrambled so as to be worse than useless.

The receivers in Russian weapons might be dual band but they would be of no value to the design and use of the system.

It would be like a US bomber flying over Nazi Germany with a secure radio link to Lord Hawhaw.

And what does how many sat guide bombs the Russians had in 2008 got to do with how many cruise missiles they have stockpiles now?

All i am saying that number of such weapons in Russian stockpile even today is very small. And they are significantly cheaper than any cruise missile.

...And using a Gefest-T upgrade with dumb iron bombs gets the same job done and its even cheaper...come at me bro!

That is all nice and dandy however Gefets cant and is not really equivalent to replace laser, TV and satelite guided munition. Its just making general purpose bombs alot more useful, its not really making them comparable to systems listed above.

miketheterrible wrote:You guys are arguing about nothing and something we cannot get full details about. Russia does have dual signal bombs (GPS/GLONASS) guided bombs for reasons beyond me really (other than export potential and high accuracy at beginning of conflict before signals for GPS drops by US command.

As well, we are fully unaware of Russia's stockpiles. Most speculated they didn't have enough kalibr missiles but they are proven wrong by Russia's use of them in Syria. Even Russia recently launched cruise missiles in Syria and not much was mentioned about it.

And yes, for Russia's campaign in Syria, there is little to no point in using guided munitions when Russia's stockpile of dumb bombs are probably so massive it's unbelievable and using Gefast & T upgrade gives it near similar (still not as accurate) as these other guided munitions.

Actually we do know that majority of guided munition Russians used were built post 2011. i belive Kotemore (or someone else i am not sure) posted pics of crates with stamp dates on them, and that though time dates were closer and closer to present day. That most likely means that stockpiles are of quite token amounts.

When its about Soviet stockpiles of general purpose bombs majority are gone. FAB-250-270s built in late 2000s appeared in Syria.

GarryB wrote:

You said "such weapons would be useless as shown in the conflict in south ossetia when the US turned off civilian GPS signals in the region". Not sure why it would matter if Russians did not use any GPS guided bombs, and from what i am aware very few if any GPS navigation systems were at that time used by Russian forces. I did not mention their number at all.

I used the conflict in South Ossetia to make the point that GPS signals are civilian only for a power like Russia and therefore worse than useless as the US CONTROLS THE SIGNALS.

There were plenty of Russian soldiers who used cell phones and also bought commercial civilian GPS hand helds to assist them during that conflict and they were rendered useless by US actions.

You said:

And laser/GPS guided bombs are even cheaper, yet how many are there stockpiled in Russia? 500?

To which I replied that GPS guided bombs would be of no value to Russia.

GPS or Navstar is a US system controlled by the US.

Russia would not benefit from stockpiling weapons using a form of guidance that relys on the US.

All i am saying that number of such weapons in Russian stockpile even today is very small. And they are significantly cheaper than any cruise missile.

Opinion... or can you provide an actual figure/list of weapons they have stockpiled...

Dumb bombs are cheaper still when delivered accurately with a Gefest & T upgraded aircraft.

As i said arleady in another reply, Gefest is all fine, but its not to be compared with kit or integral onboard guidance systems, not in a million years. If it was Russians wouldnt invest so heavily last few years in various PGMs and put pressure on Kompas to if possible increase their production of recievers. As they currently have very limited production capabilities.

The Russians have never been an all their eggs in one basket type of designer.

Just because a bomb has laser guidance does not mean you can just release it at any angle and any speed and it will hit its target.

You need to be able to line up the target and release it at the right moment... so the Gefest & T upgrade will improve the performance of all weapons... guided or otherwise.

Money well spent.

Not entirely sure where to ask a question like this, but throughout Russia's intervention in Syria, there has been mention of a targeting system for the Su-24 (an no doubt other aircraft) that supposedly gives dumb-bombs accuracy similar to that of guided bombs. I believe the targeting system is being referred to as svp-24, though I am not 100% sure.

Anyway, my question is, how does this targeting system differ from the stock standard CCRP bombing mode that has been used for the best part of the last half-century?

For quite some time, have aircraft been able to autonomously calculate their flight envelope for bomb delivery, so what is different about this svp-24 system? how can it provide such accuracy if there are still some environmental effects, such as wind for example, that could derail and calculations made from solely the aircraft parameters (A problem with CCRP for dumb-bombs)?

It is SVP-24 by Gefast & T. You are correct on that. The difference is more of a sensor fusion using this third party software/hardware that determines lots of factors when trying to drop dumb bombs. As well, it does add a GPS/Glonass subsystem and other targeting structures (using radar to make mapping and what not). It is a simpler add-on system but that has proven to be extremely effective. There are other options too like ground crew who can help the aircrafts by painting targets with a laser (this kind of system been around for a long time) but this is just a newer variant of that.

Think of it as the CCIP system the F-16 had, but it uses more sensors and it more accurate>

Note CCIP stands for Continuously Computed Impact point... in computer games it is a target marker that floats in the HUD showing the impact point of the selected weapon if it were to be released at that time.

Unlike most bombing systems you can use it in free flight... most previous systems you put on the aircrafts autopilot and that flew the aircraft level and at a constant speed and the bombs were automatically released.

And claims this cannot replace guided weapons is bullshit.

If you can get comparable accuracy then why not use cheap and simple unguided bombs to replace expensive and complicated guided munitions that are not that much more accurate.

GarryB wrote:Think of it as the CCIP system the F-16 had, but it uses more sensors and it more accurate>

Note CCIP stands for Continuously Computed Impact point... in computer games it is a target marker that floats in the HUD showing the impact point of the selected weapon if it were to be released at that time.

Unlike most bombing systems you can use it in free flight... most previous systems you put on the aircrafts autopilot and that flew the aircraft level and at a constant speed and the bombs were automatically released.

And claims this cannot replace guided weapons is bullshit.

If you can get comparable accuracy then why not use cheap and simple unguided bombs to replace expensive and complicated guided munitions that are not that much more accurate.

I agree with your last comment 100%, but I think you have mistaken CCRP and CCIP. The former, and the one i was referring to, CCRP, stands for continuously calculated release point, which can also be used in so called "Free flight". It is the more complex of the two but has been used extensively over the last several decades.

CCRP requires the pilot to designate a point on the ground (the target) prior to flying over. The internal computers then calculate the aircraft's flight envelope (Speed, Alt, AoA, acceleration etc...) and provide the pilot with the necessary heading information to the target. He need only follow the HUD prompts and the weapons will be released automatically, during level flight (so long as the trigger is held for the duration). Even the base model Su-27 has a CCRP system. CCIP on the other hand, requires entering a dive onto the target. The latter is more of a CAS method than that of a front-line bomber.

Miketheterrible:
I appreciate the input, and i am certainly not suggesting you are wrong, but I think I am failing to grasp something very fundamental here. To me, a Dumb bomb is a dumb bomb. It has no moving fins, no laser-homing tech, no wind-assisted guidance. Once it is dropped from the aircraft, it is on a fixed, predetermined path to the ground (predetermined by the environmental factors, not the pilot). So with that in mind, the aircraft could have a whole list of sensors at its disposal, but it is never going to account for dynamic events.

For example, assume the aircraft was able to use its targeting sensors to find the perfect firing solution for the pilot. He presses the trigger, and the bomb is away. now, if everything stayed exactly the way it was when the sensors were able to analyse it, the pilot would be home-free. However, in reality, wind is dynamic and changes on a whim. Over a fall of 5,000 metres (the distance the RuAF claimed they were bombing from) wind would have a massive influence over the bomb's flight path. So my question is. How does an aircraft-bound sensor changing this fact? How does it predict something so dynamic and changeable as wind?

Cheetah wrote:

GarryB wrote:Think of it as the CCIP system the F-16 had, but it uses more sensors and it more accurate>

Note CCIP stands for Continuously Computed Impact point... in computer games it is a target marker that floats in the HUD showing the impact point of the selected weapon if it were to be released at that time.

Unlike most bombing systems you can use it in free flight... most previous systems you put on the aircrafts autopilot and that flew the aircraft level and at a constant speed and the bombs were automatically released.

And claims this cannot replace guided weapons is bullshit.

If you can get comparable accuracy then why not use cheap and simple unguided bombs to replace expensive and complicated guided munitions that are not that much more accurate.

I agree with your last comment 100%, but I think you have mistaken CCRP and CCIP. The former, and the one i was referring to, CCRP, stands for continuously calculated release point, which can also be used in so called "Free flight". It is the more complex of the two but has been used extensively over the last several decades.

CCRP requires the pilot to designate a point on the ground (the target) prior to flying over. The internal computers then calculate the aircraft's flight envelope (Speed, Alt, AoA, acceleration etc...) and provide the pilot with the necessary heading information to the target. He need only follow the HUD prompts and the weapons will be released automatically, during level flight (so long as the trigger is held for the duration). Even the base model Su-27 has a CCRP system. CCIP on the other hand, requires entering a dive onto the target. The latter is more of a CAS method than that of a front-line bomber.

Miketheterrible:
I appreciate the input, and i am certainly not suggesting you are wrong, but I think I am failing to grasp something very fundamental here. To me, a Dumb bomb is a dumb bomb. It has no moving fins, no laser-homing tech, no wind-assisted guidance. Once it is dropped from the aircraft, it is on a fixed, predetermined path to the ground (predetermined by the environmental factors, not the pilot). So with that in mind, the aircraft could have a whole list of sensors at its disposal, but it is never going to account for dynamic events.

For example, assume the aircraft was able to use its targeting sensors to find the perfect firing solution for the pilot. He presses the trigger, and the bomb is away. now, if everything stayed exactly the way it was when the sensors were able to analyse it, the pilot would be home-free. However, in reality, wind is dynamic and changes on a whim. Over a fall of 5,000 metres (the distance the RuAF claimed they were bombing from) wind would have a massive influence over the bomb's flight path. So my question is. How does an aircraft-bound sensor changing this fact? How does it predict something so dynamic and changeable as wind?

Figure it out. I already explained it. Sensors and data calculation done by the onboard computer before dropping the bomb. So far, it works great. Don't believe it? be my guest. Not like I give a shit.

miketheterrible wrote:Figure it out.  I already explained it.  Sensors and data calculation done by the onboard computer before dropping the bomb.  So far, it works great.  Don't believe it? be my guest.  Not like I give a shit.

Bravo, you really showed me.

Though, indeed you are right. I am a sceptic of the targeting system used, and in usual sceptic fashion, i ventured to find out just how it may work, to get answers from someone more knowledgeable than I. You provided me with a vague explanation that could sum up even the most basic CCRP systems, and I asked whether you could elaborate on it. Instead you made clear your lack of interest, so why bother answering at all?

I hope you understand that, my asking around on this forum is my attempt to "figure it out". Although, if I have mistaken this forum as a place for information on Russian defence, don't leave me in the dark.

Cheetah wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Figure it out.  I already explained it.  Sensors and data calculation done by the onboard computer before dropping the bomb.  So far, it works great.  Don't believe it? be my guest.  Not like I give a shit.

Bravo, you really showed me.

Though, indeed you are right. I am a sceptic of the targeting system used, and in usual sceptic fashion, i ventured to find out just how it may work, to get answers from someone more knowledgeable than I. You provided me with a vague explanation that could sum up even the most basic CCRP systems, and I asked whether you could elaborate on it. Instead you made clear your lack of interest, so why bother answering at all?

I hope you understand that, my asking around on this forum is my attempt to "figure it out". Although, if I have mistaken this forum as a place for information on Russian defence, don't leave me in the dark.

You are asking something that the engineers of the device would know. None of us built it and it is pretty sensitive equipment. So far, it has proven successful in Syria and the Russian airforce is greatly happy with it and how it worked. So however it works under your suspicion, it does.

I really wish I could give you more, but lets face it, the answer will just be the same and the circle continues. I hope you find your answer though.

Russia's defense contractor to display new cluster bomb at Army-2017 show

The bomb will be capable of destroying armored vehicles, ground radars, command centers and power supply units of air defense systems



MOSCOW, August 17. /TASS/. Russia’s Techmash will demonstrate a new type of gliding cluster bombs with improved range and accuracy parameters at the international weapons show Army 2017, the company’s press-service said on Thursday.

"The unified gliding cluster bomb PBK-500U SPBA-K will be one of the key exhibits to be displayed by Techmash. It is capable of destroying armored vehicles, ground radars, command centers and power supply units of air defense systems," the company said.

The plane carrying the bomb does not have to enter the zone of the enemy’s air defenses. The bomb glides for several dozen kilometers and delivers self-homing warheads with high accuracy.

"Among the presented products is the unparalleled anti-tank rocket grenade RPG-30 with a disposable launcher. It is meant for hitting current and future tanks, including those equipped with dynamic protection and reactive armor," Techmash said.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/960749

How does it predict something so dynamic and changeable as wind?

Russian air fields and Russian snipers have been equipped with laser sensors that can detect air movements at various ranges/distances.

The air fields use them to detect dangerous vortex airflows above the airfield generated by aircraft flying over, while Russian military snipers use them to detect wind currents that will effect bullet impact points.

I rather suspect in the latter case that information would be useful for an aircraft at 5km altitude bombing something on the ground.

George1 wrote:Russia's defense contractor to display new cluster bomb at Army-2017 show

The bomb will be capable of destroying armored vehicles, ground radars, command centers and power supply units of air defense systems


More:
http://tass.com/defense/960749

Ladies and gentlemen, here is for you the first high drag gliding cluster bomb in the world!
Out of jokes, i'm 100% sure it will be an awesome weapon but the difference between its shape and the western bombs, streamlined to an almost impossible level, is just striking.

Actually western equivalents look very similar.

This is a glide bomb designed to be released well away from the target and to glide on its large wings which deploy outwards on release like a cruise missile.

To fly efficiently it needs wing surface area... which is shown folded away in the picture above...

GarryB wrote:
Russian air fields and Russian snipers have been equipped with laser sensors that can detect air movements at various ranges/distances.

The air fields use them to detect dangerous vortex airflows above the airfield generated by aircraft flying over, while Russian military snipers use them to detect wind currents that will effect bullet impact points.

I rather suspect in the latter case that information would be useful for an aircraft at 5km altitude bombing something on the ground.

Now we are getting somewhere.

You wouldn't happen to have a link would you? describing the sensor, be it a news article or even a Wikipedia page. not for the Su-24 targeting system specifically, but even the one used for airfields.

GarryB wrote:Actually western equivalents look very similar.

This is a glide bomb designed to be released well away from the target and to glide on its large wings which deploy outwards on release like a cruise missile.

To fly efficiently it needs wing surface area... which is shown folded away in the picture above...

Maybe i'm not been clear enough biut I was referring to the Lenght/Diameter ratio of the (cluster) bomb in question not to the wingspan.
Mu data gave me an overall lenght of 2500mm for a body diameter of about 50 cm i.e. about 1 to 5, when a mk80 series (and subsequentely Jdams) reach 1/8.
Let's note that the fact RuAF still prefer to uses high drag bomb like the M1954 and above all the OFAB 250/270 even with the SVP-24 give probably an hint how the precision of system vary with the type of weapon used.
Hope there will be also a foldable wing version of this awesome bomb to be used with the Su-57.

You wouldn't happen to have a link would you? describing the sensor, be it a news article or even a Wikipedia page. not for the Su-24 targeting system specifically, but even the one used for airfields.

Doppler LiDAR information can be found here:

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=2wo2DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=wind+shear+detector+laser+Russian&source=bl&ots=HM4DfndbzZ&sig=djK-yKsfWpBt5ngGjtYli8U48Yg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNj8zjturVAhVEvrwKHWIZCGAQ6AEIVDAL#v=onepage&q=wind%20shear%20detector%20laser%20Russian&f=false

and here:

http://www.lsystems.ru/en/products/14/205/

and Here:

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_287_en.pdf

and here:

http://www.ians.aero/en/projects/meteorological-equipment/llwsas

Mu data gave me an overall lenght of 2500mm for a body diameter of about 50 cm i.e. about 1 to 5, when a mk80 series (and subsequentely Jdams) reach 1/8.

You are comparing the length to weight ratio of a cluster bomb with a iron bomb?

OK then... the US equivalent cluster bomb would be the CBU-97... it has a length of 2.34m and a diameter of 40cm... which is nothing like a 1/8 ratio.... actually a 5.8 ratio or there abouts.

Wow... Russian cluster bomb is super fat, while ultra skinny US bomb is marginally narrower...

Let's note that the fact RuAF still prefer to uses high drag bomb like the M1954 and above all the OFAB 250/270 even with the SVP-24 give probably an hint how the precision of system vary with the type of weapon used.

shorter fatter bombs make more sense with internal bomb bays like on Tu-22m3s.

Equally the aircraft carrying these bombs are not flying low level at supersonic speed so drag is not actually an issue.

The SVP-24 takes into account the ballistic performance of the weapon selected so the drag level of the bomb is not relevant.

Having a high drag bomb shape means it does not need a drag chute to allow safe low level release.

As long as drag is calculated into the free fall algorythm a high drag bomb should actually fall faster and slow horizontal speed faster which would actually make it more accurate, not less accurate.

[quote="GarryB"]

Mu data gave me an overall lenght of 2500mm for a body diameter of about 50 cm i.e. about 1 to 5, when a mk80 series (and subsequentely Jdams) reach 1/8.

You are comparing the length to weight ratio of a cluster bomb with a iron bomb?

OK then... the US equivalent cluster bomb would be the CBU-97... it has a length  of 2.34m and a diameter of 40cm... which is nothing like a 1/8 ratio.... actually a 5.8 ratio or there abouts.

Wow... Russian cluster bomb is super fat, while ultra skinny US bomb is marginally narrower...

Let's note that the fact RuAF still prefer to uses high drag bomb like the M1954 and above all the OFAB 250/270 even with the SVP-24 give probably an hint how the precision of system vary with the type of weapon used.

shorter fatter bombs make more sense with internal bomb bays like on Tu-22m3s.

Equally the aircraft carrying these bombs are not flying low level at supersonic speed so drag is not actually an issue.

The SVP-24 takes into account the ballistic performance of the weapon selected so the drag level of the bomb is not relevant.

Having a high drag bomb shape means it does not need a drag chute to allow safe low level release.

As long as drag is calculated into the free fall algorythm a high drag bomb should actually fall faster and slow horizontal speed faster which would actually make it more accurate, not less accurate.

GarfryB , maybe it's the habit of bickering just for the taste of it that somewhat you can faund in site like these but you here just have got a false is not exactly opposite impression of what i have wrote.
I'm not saying one type of weapon is better than another just noting how the operational doctrine of the two "blocks" actually diverge one from the other in the matter.
And yes, Soviet Union/Russia got also low drag fre fall bombs from the early sixties (the M62 series), still is using NOW from standard tactical planes, not just from Tu-22M bomb bay, much more high drag bombs than the most recent models, so one can ask himself the reason of such a preference.
It seems there is a general consensus that the most used bomb of all is the OFAB 250/270 (at the point that is even carried by the Backfires that were not originarly intended to use such a weapon) so probably they found out that it is the perfect mix between precision, warhead area of effect, stabbility of flight under adverse wind condition and so on.
Because, certainly a system like the SVP-24 can enhance the precision of all different types of weapon (and that is an helluva advantage when compared to a guidance kit that have to be taylored-made) but it doesn't mean that they would all end up having the same CEP on ground regardles from drop quote and in all the weather conditions.
And personally, I find the overall Russian approach of having a wide array of different weapons guided or not, vastly superior to the western one in even a lot of time before the introduction of guided kits there was practically just one family of aerial bomb and a quite extreme one like the Mk80 series only.

https://vpk.name/news/207271_novoe_oruzhie_rossii_drelyu_po_tankam.html

Авиабомба "Дрель" пополнит арсенал российской армии в 2018 году

Новейшая авиабомба "Дрель", о которой впервые стало известно в ходе форума "Армия-2016", поступит на вооружение в 2018 году, заявил генеральный директор концерна "Техмаш" Владимир Лепин в ходе научно-технической конференции, прошедшей на базе НПО "Базальт".

"Государственные испытания нового базового образца планирующей бомбовой кассеты калибром 500 кг в снаряжении самоприцеливающимися боевыми элементами начались в 2016 году. Государственные испытания проводятся в соответствии с программой заказчика (Министерства обороны России), после успешного завершения которых в 2018 году данное изделие планируется принять на вооружение", - заявил Лепин.

Как сообщается, унифицированная планирующая бомбовая кассета ПБК-500У СПБЭ-К ("Дрель") обладает возможностью круглосуточного всепогодного применения. Предполагается, что сброс боеприпаса будет осуществляться без входа самолета-носителя в зону поражения зенитных ракетных систем и комплексов.

Планирующая бомбовая кассета ПБК-500У СПБЭ-К предназначена для поражения бронетанковой техники, РЛС системы радиолокационной разведки, пунктов управления, зенитных ракетных комплексов, систем вероятного противника.

RuAF will start receiving new satelitte guided glide cluster bomb filled with smart anti-tank submunition. New bomb could glide up to 30 km, when dropped from higher altitude. State tests of new 500 kg weight bomb started in 2016 and will finnish in 2018. Bomb could be used in any time of the day and in any weather and from the safe distance from ground air defense (MANPADs and AA guns).

GarfryB , maybe it's the habit of bickering just for the taste of it that somewhat you can faund in site like these but you here just have got a false is not exactly opposite impression of what i have wrote.

You said that the Soviets and Russians preferred short fat bomb designs but compared a standard iron bomb with a cluster bomb as an example.

A bit like calling American rifles overweight when comparing the M60 MG with the SVD rifle...

Cluster bombs are big containers filled with smaller munitions and not known for being streamlined weapons...

Back on topic it sounds like a rather capable weapon, being able to glide up to 30km.

Systems like the gefest & T system improve performance potential because they allow releases from higher altitudes which should extend glide range performance considerably, though it is a guided munition it should be able to counter any wind issues on the way to the target itself.

This new PBK-500U glide cluster bomb will be very potent weapon for Su-25SM and Yak-130. They are both capable to use 500 kg bombs and Yak-130 already uses TV guided KAB-500Kr bombs. Satelitte guided PBK-500U could make Yak-130 very potent combat plane in such environment like in Syria, specially as those bomb will have various types of submunition, but first will be made with 15 smart anti-tank submunition in it.

I've seen a new russian guided bomb that has also a missile variant, short range like 40km. I don't remember the name. Does anyone know something about that ? I think the was something like "grom".

edit: I was right it is Grom 1 and Grom 2

https://sputniknews.com/military/201508311026395651-russia-unveils-newest-smart-bombs/

The Grom-1 is in fact a guided cruise missile equipped with an engine, inertial and satellite guidance systems.

Equipped with a cutting-edge guidance system, the Grom-2 is a high-precision bomb. With no engine, it has an increased, 130-kilogram payload. After the bomb is dropped it flies until it reaches the target. It has a maximum range of 280 kilometers.

Despite the differences in design, both bombs were based on the KH-38 multirole laser-guided missile. The initial construction was modified with wings, and its payload was also updated.

Any news about the use of this ?

Guided glide bomb with range up to 120km tested onboard Su-34
Nice pics:
https://en.ppt-online.org/345832