Russian Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles (ASM):

Kh-37 (3M24E1) - proposed upgrade with 250 km range and a land-attack capability, GPS mid-course guidance and an imaging infrared seeker akin to the Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM). Some sources attribute the name Uran or Bal to this variant

http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-Weapons/Kh-37-Russian-Federation.html

Some sources attribute the name Uran or Bal to this variant

Uran is Kh-35, and Bal is the shore based anti ship battery name for the same missile.

I think they are talking about the extended range updated model, that is sometimes called Uranium and has the designation Kh-35UE.

Here is its webpage:

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/512/563/

Land attack models certainly wouldn't be impossible, and the original weapon was good enough that the Indians bought them without tender or much negotiation.

The thing is that for an air launched land attack missile with optical guidance the Russians already have the Kh-59 and Kh-59M missile systems (AS-13 Kingbolt and AS-18 Kazoo respectively).

Mindstorm wrote:

George1 wrote:What about standoff missiles like new Kh-59MK2?

George for what reason at world Russian Air Force should procure for itself the downgraded export version of its missile -the Kh-59MK2 with range limited within the limits of MTCR - when it has the domestical ,vastly superior, version of this same missile ?
George ,if you allow me to provide a little piece of advice, when you see the letter "K" in a russian weapon denomination don't put never this same weapon in any discussions about Russian Armed Forces,

Which is the domestic version of this missile?

You make a good point Mindstorm, but in some respects it is also not 100% true.

Domestic models of Russian equipment has no range or payload limits... the MTCR limits range to less than 300kms, but it also limits deliverable payload to 500kgs or less.

The domestic Russian models have no such limitation, however until recently orders for any domestic models have been limited by the small number of operational aircraft actually able to carry and operate the new domestic weapons, so the very small batches purchased likely had more in common with export missiles than domestic ones.

A good example is the Mig-29K... the Indians have pretty much paid for its development and production, and the Russian military are going to tack on an order for themselves, though they wont be getting the same aircraft... they will likely fit newer model engines with slightly more thrust (have heard of a 9.5 ton thrust version of the RD-33) and likely other modifications as well.

In terms of missiles like the Kalibr family of missiles the range limitations are software based, so essentially the domestic and foreign missiles are the same, but with the right software patch the range of the land attack missile goes from 280km to 2,000km...

I have also read recently that the new Kh-38 missile with options for IIR, MMW radar, semi active laser homing and GLONASS guidance options and combinations of these which has been reported to have a range of 40km for export as a replacement for the Kh-25 family and the Kh-29 has a range of 80km in the domestic version.

Another example is the RVV-BD with 200km range against an 8g target while the domestic R-37m has a range of 280km against an 8g target.

@George1
A domestic version of the Kh-59MK2 would be the Kh-59M2 or something similar.

The external engine pod would probably prevent the Kh-59M from being used in the internal weapon bay on the Backfire, but it could probably carry two missiles on each of its 4 external weapon points, though max load would probably be 7 as a datalink pod needs to be carried to communicate with the missile as it nears its target.

I would think, in terms of conventional cruise missile attack that something like the Kh-555 would be a better choice... 3,500km range would be useful.

GarryB wrote:
A domestic version of the Kh-59MK2 would be the Kh-59M2 or something similar.

and its range?

and its range?

George1 to the contrary of US military tradition ,culturally linked (in any field) to pompous self-boosting "shows" and claims to maintain public opinion national support and cohesion, Russian military tradition stress enormously on the central importance of information denial ,conflicting information or ,even worse, plain disinformation ,elements refined and perfected ,in the course of more than three decades, up to the point to become even a parts integral and of its military doctrine ,from the high strategic up the lower tactical level.

This enormous difference become self evident when we examine pasted conflicts : for a Russian Generals order the employ an up-to-date and/or potentially crucial weapon system for an eventual war against NATO in a regional conflict against an immensely inferior enemy would be totally unconceivable .
Only to provide a recent example, Russia in the 2008 South Ossetian conflict has destroyed half of Georgian naval unities employing exclusively....P-120 Malakhit !!!... in spite in the same naval group was present units equiped with modern supersonic and subsonic anti-ship missiles, among the 140 MBT used the most modern was 28 T-72BM of the older type with equal number of...T-62 and even some T-55 and that in spite the southern 19th and 20th motorized brigades of 58th Army was equiped with modern T-80UM and T-90A MBT ,not a single precision missile or bomb even close to life expiring (such as first optronic guided KAB bomb family of which Russia has even an excess) has been used and no modern tracking or communication equipment was employed (leaving in this way the hopes of USA analysts, with the USS Mount Whitney ,the most advanced ELINT unit of USA Navy purposely send in the area, shatter against a brick wall ).
The result of those choices has been a victory in less than 5 days ,employing very limited forces at negligible costs and without surrender to western analysts even the shadow of any useful data...or even worse data completely wronged .
The high efficiency of this doctrine ,foreseeing also the export to secondary allies of vastly downgraded specimen designed as a potent mean for conduct completely out of track western military analysts , become evident after Germany reunification when western scientists of the sectors get the chance to test original Soviet versions of T-72B with K-5 , discovering with horror that them was practically impervious to all the anti-tanks weapons present in NATO arsenal at the time and widely used in Desert Storm , or the outstanding capabilities of Krasnopol artillery rounds or the deadly efficiency of the R-73 and HMS on the east Germany Mig-29 or the fearful ECM/ECCM capabilities of the original soviet N019 radar mounted on them .
You can realize why among Russian generals are very common ,still today, jokes on the "Yankees" employing theirs ,at the time, just completed and crucial F-117 and Ah-64 in ...Panama conflict !!!


Returning to your initial question i give to you some hints

the Saturn 39-01E cruise engine power the export version of Novator Klub family of missiles this version is limited to 280-300 Km, the domestic version with increased trust and fuel economy has a range of .....more than 2000 km !!!

The Saturn 36MT cruise engine power the Kh-59M family, the export versions of those missiles have a range up to 285 Km and Jane's Defence say that on the element

The 285 km range figure is likely to be an artificial 'book figure', quoted to keep the Kh-59MK within Class II Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) guidelines (which forbid the export of weapons with a 300 km+ range). Exactly the same range is quoted for the Kh-59MK.

The domestic version with increased trust and fuel economy has about the same trust to weight ratio of engine powering the AGM-158B a slightly better fuel fraction and obviously a not compromised aerodynamics layout "exchanged" for reduced X band radar observability .... "intelligenti pauca".

How does the soviet equivalent of the AGM-65 fare against it? Is it more or less accurate?  Does it have the same destructive power? Can it be an extremely effective tank killer like the maverick and does it have a HEAT version?

The X-25/Kh-25 is a missile in a very similar class to the Maverick and on paper its performance is very similar.

The main difference is that the loiter for long periods behind enemy lines hitting targets of opportunity with an A-10 simply didn't exist for the Soviets/Russians.

The Su-25 is not a tank buster, it is a direct fire support aircraft and most of the time it will engage targets with unguided rockets or bombs rather than any sort of missile.

The standard anti tank weapon of the Su-25 was the RBK-500 cluster bomb with sensor fused anti tank submunitions.

A direct comparison between them is difficult because the TV and IR guided models of the X-25/Kh-25 were not widely deployed, the most common types to see service were called AS-10 and AS-12 by NATO. The AS-7 was briefly used but its command guidance made it a poor choice for most single crew aircraft.

The laser homing Kh-25 (AS-10) and the radar homing Kh-25 (AS-12) were widely deployed and used and their 90kg HE warheads really wouldn't need a shaped charge design to kill a tank... a direct hit and the blast alone would likely kill the crew.

The Maverick was widely deployed in TV and IR guided models, but AFAIK had no anti radiation model that entered widespread service... the only US equivalent of the AS-12 would be Sidearm, the ARM version of Sidewinder.

http://lenta.ru/news/2013/01/16/missile/

So, Izvestia claims Kh-38 passed trials and was accepted in December 2012. This year combat rounds are going to be delivered.

I remember a Russian official saying the Kh-38 has a range of 40km in the export model and 80km in the domestic model.

80km?!?!

I would imagine practical guidance and targeting would become an issue at such ranges.

With a favorable launch profile + proper flight profile it should be feasible physically though.

Su-34 could carry a huge bag of these guys.

I would imagine practical guidance and targeting would become an issue at such ranges.

Based on the descriptions of the export models... ie:

- Kh-38MAE - inertial + active radar guidance;
- Kh-38MKE - inertial + satellite guidance;
- Kh-38MLE - inertial + semiactive laser guidance;
- Kh-38MTE - inertial + thermal-imaging guidance.

There shouldn't be a problem. Targets detected and IDed at 40km should be able to be detected and IDed at 80km.

The active radar guided model can be locked and launched from an Su-34 using its own ground radar to detect the target... whether it is a building or a bridge or a tank.

The satellite guided weapon would simply require the coordinates of the target so 80km is no different from 40km.

SALH means you need a laser to mark the target, but that laser does not have to come from the launch aircraft... assets like UAVs or ground forces near the target can mark it with a laser... the extended range simply means the missile can be launched from a safer distance.

And finally a thermal guidance system wouldn't work from 40km so it wouldn't work directly from 80km either. Clearly the Thermally guided missile has an EO guidance system perhaps like AS-13 or AS-18 that allows the missile to be flown to the target area and transmits an image of the target area back to the launch aircraft where the weapon officer can mark the precise target with a cursor and the missile will be sent target information to engage the target.
The alternative would be for the IIR guided missile to have a range of IR signatures in its memory and it can be launched to look for specific targets. The former would be easier and cheaper to implement and would also be more flexible as you can target what you find.

They will be useful weapons but I still think that for some roles the Kh-25M would be more useful as a smaller and lighter missile with a potent warhead.

Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

The Kh-38 is to be the multipurpose air to ground weapon for the Russian military... sort of a replacement Kh-25... a bit like Maverick in the US inventory... so yes... I would expect the Su-34 to carry them... and the Su-35... 80km range in the Russian domestic model.

Cyberspec wrote:Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

Nice to see, they are in service.

Cyberspec wrote:Nice to hear the LMFS and other projects are being worked on...

___


Su-34 armed with Kh-38M?

May I have the link for this Youtube video? It looks interesting.

I've been wondering just how common were they in the MiG-27, Su-17M4 and Su-25 regiments? Did some regiments lack them?

Were LGBs and X-25s widely used for antiinsurgency support in Afghanistan or Chechnya?

In the soviet air force were guided weapons allowed to be fired in exercises ? I've heard that in soviet tank units gun launched ATGMs were extremely expensive(Kobra for example costs as a much as a lada) and were only fired occasionally by officers.

My father was a guardsman of a fighter bomber regiment which had MiG-23BNs and said that the only weapons fired by the aircraft were training dumb bombs, S-5 rockets and occassionaly FAB-100s . Not once were X-23s or any kind of other weapons(gun pods, BetABs, ODABs, S-24s) used in exercises.

Was the soviet air force more generous in using more advanced ordnance in training? Are there enough guided weapons available for the Russian frontline aviation today?

They had an abundance and a serious shortage all at the same time...

For Hind units there were plenty of ATGM for hitting point targets, but the vast majority of ordinance carried by Hinds was 57mm and 80mm unguided rockets and small calibre bombs and of course cannon shells.

For aircraft there were plenty of guided air to air missiles, but not so many guided air to ground weapons.

They certainly had them, but didn't tend to use them in large numbers as most targets they didn't really know exactly where they were so often an air strike with Su-25s using rockets to hit point targets were more common than stand off guided strikes.

They had Kh-25 missiles with laser guidance and anti radar models and they had Kh-58 guided weapons too, but of the main platforms the Su-24 was the most common aircraft to carry guided weapons while the single engined aircraft were retired rapidly at the end of the cold war and the remaining aircraft didn't have the capacity to use most of the guided air to ground weapons.

Now however they are introducing a range of upgraded and new aircraft able to use the new sophisticated guided weapons and so money is now being invested in new guided munitions and the C4IR equipment that actually makes them useful.

Also however the aircraft are getting upgraded avionics to allow dumb weapons to be delivered more effectively.

For instance the new Mi-35N has laser range finders and ballistic computers and stabilised night vision equipment is used so even dumb rockets are rather more accurate that with the older models where range was guessed and the target area obscured with smoke after the first launch.

Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

Might I ask You what's wrong with GAU-8 power? Even AA guns are known to rip tanks apart, not mentioning such shower of projectiles coming from above

Its true that now Russian aircraft can use more guided weapons, but one aircraft that doesn't get that ability very much is the Su-25.

In coin conflicts the lack of an integrated air defence network for the enemy generally means that the Su-25s can complete their mission by engaging targets directly with bombs and rockets.

The A-10 on the other hand had a more roving role of operating behind enemy lines and destroying enemy armour... mostly with TV and IR guided Mavericks.

Where they are used for a similar mission the Su-25 and A-10 might be called in to deal with an enemy position that the ground forces are having trouble with... an A-10 might use its gun and a maverick, while the Su-25 is more likely to use rockets and dumb bombs... both aircraft were considered to be effective in their roles so we can assume both approaches worked.

I've always considered post cold war Su-25 models(except Su-25TM) inferior to A10s since they can't carry TV guided weapons and ATGMs(even SM by default can't yet its supposed to be the most modern one).

For most targets an accurately placed bomb is just as effective as any PGM, though when supporting ground forces laser guided AS-10 Karen Kh-25ML laser guided missiles are effective enough. There were plans for IR and TV guided Kh-25M models but they never seemed to bother. The new Kh-38 will include a range of air to ground models with a payload almost triple that of the Kh-25 series.

While both TV guided and SALH mavericks with HEAT warheads are the staple weapon used for tank busting(GAU-8's power is ridiculously exaggerated against modern MBTs starting from T-64 up)

Against the Russians yes, against villages in Yemen it is fine... though very politically incorrect to distribute nuclear waste on third world countries...

Might I ask You what's wrong with GAU-8 power? Even AA guns are known to rip tanks apart, not mentioning such shower of projectiles coming from above

Despite its marketing... it is still just a 30mm cannon... in a duel against a Tunguska... well the ground vehicle has all sorts of sensors to detect and track the A-10, while the A-10 does not have a radar to detect and track the 2S6M... and that is just gun talk...

Most of the A-10 is gun... if it had the 25mm guns of the AV-8 it would be just as potent but wouldn't be the size of a B-25.

GarryB wrote:
Despite its marketing... it is still just a 30mm cannon... in a duel against a Tunguska... well the ground vehicle has all sorts of sensors to detect and track the A-10, while the A-10 does not have a radar to detect and track the 2S6M... and that is just gun talk...

Most of the A-10 is gun... if it had the 25mm guns of the AV-8 it would be just as potent but wouldn't be the size of a B-25.

The A-10C has a pretty good RWR so it can pick up and give azimuth to radar emissions. There's an MWS for detecting launches when someone fires a MANPADS or a non-radar SAM at you as well. They also carry jammers, I've seen 119s and 131s carried, so they aren't exactly flying naked.

As to the size of the gun/airframe combo...without being that size, I'd bet it wouldn't be as damage resistant.

The A-10C has a pretty good RWR so it can pick up and give azimuth to radar emissions. There's an MWS for detecting launches when someone fires a MANPADS or a non-radar SAM at you as well. They also carry jammers, I've seen 119s and 131s carried, so they aren't exactly flying naked.

The A-10 was supposed to operate in the enemy rear looking for armoured formations and attacking them... it should have come across SA-8, Tunguska, SA-13, as well as SA-15, SA-11 and SA-17 on a regular basis.

It would have struggled... and relied on stand off missiles a lot.

As to the size of the gun/airframe combo...without being that size, I'd bet it wouldn't be as damage resistant.

Would not have been as much of a big slow target either... and photos prove the Su-25 was pretty missile resistant too...

It would have struggled... and relied on stand off missiles a lot.

While the A10 would've struggled while equipped with mavericks and ECM pods SU-25 would be massacred by roland , rapier, mistral and stinger SAMs due to absolute lack of any standoff AT munitions. They only had the RBK-250-500 and S-8 with HEAT. Also was the basic Su-25 capable of carrying any kind of ECM pod in service?