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

That's called a missile and they have already ataka, vikhr, kh-25, lmur...

They do and it makes no sense to turn the Krasnopol into one.

What they're talking about here is basically a small guided bomb to be equipped on drones. A good alternative for the KAB-50 model they exhibited. This one is a lot lighter and you can probably equip a good rack of them onto a medium-sized drone, or a couple onto a small drone.
So like a missile. Except slower, and multiple-use, potentially even reusable if the drone makes it back.

As FP and others point out, it is essentially a laser guided bomb... if the drone flys at above 8km altitude the odds of it being shot down are tiny, but being a guided round its accuracy to hit the target should be very good... if they want to use up BUKS and S-300s to shoot them down that is actually a win for Russia because every missile they waste on drone is a bonus.

The critical thing is that without modification... these things are in mass production already so they are ready to go so all they really need is some attachment or release mechanism to carry on the drone.

A custom designed drone would be interesting that had down the centreline of the fuselage holes in the top you put the rounds point down (they have ballistic caps to protect the optics during handling which are blown off explosively once the round is in flight to the target, but the bottom of the drone could be open with something holding the rounds in place with a servo to release the round to let it fall straight down and perhaps knock the optics cap off so it can see its target and steer to hit it.

Already in mass production and dropped from a height would have quite decent kinetic energy let alone the HE power of the rounds.

The KGMU2 is a cluster bomb munition container that looks like a bomb but it is not dropped by the aircraft normally.

When used normally the bottom section of it opens on command and munitions are released and the munition container stays attached to the aircraft and can be refilled and reused with any combinations of munitions you please.

Perhaps a bomb shaped container could be developed to hold these guided rounds aligned vertically downwards ready for individual release that can be carried on wing pylons on aircraft and drones... having a pod with a dozen rounds would mean you would want to use it on a medium sized drone with decent endurance where it could hit a dozen targets before needing to be rearmed... and they are HE rounds so they would be very effective against troops and buildings and other targets on the battlefield...

Edit: if they want to do this with all their guided artillery rounds then they could use 152mm, 125mm, 122mm, and 120mm as well as 100mm guided rounds...some of which do have built in rocket motors to get them to the target after being barrel launched...

Glide module?

but at least it's cheap so

Problem is there seem to be no guidance module. Gliding is good but if it is to bomb empty ground there is no real value.

I think it is extremely clever. Even as a dumb bomb it could be useful.

Screwed up a word which is why I edited.

Gliding for tens of km makes it dumber than dumb bombs. With the wind it will have a CEP of few km. Totally useless without a guidance kit unless they plan to wipe out Kiev or other big cities.

Why make a cheap dumb bomb expensive by putting an expensive guided glide kit on it?

A cheap dump bomb with a cheap dumb glide kit can be delivered accurately with the same electronics and avionics that make the dumb bombs accurate enough for use.

They also have guided glided bombs but like their laser guided and TV guided weapons they are custom designed weapons because guided bomb kits for dumb bombs are con schemes. Guided bomb gliding kits for dumb bombs are the same...

If you want a guided weapon then make a guided weapon... don't make a cheap bomb an expensive bomb and pretend the cheap dumb bomb is now guided at no extra cost... the cost of the guidance kits is greater than the cost of a guided bomb.

More importantly guided bombs can be a fraction of the HE power and weight because they are more likely to get direct hits so you can use much smaller HE payloads, or just the right amount for specific targets.

The Tu-22M3 was dropping clusters of 6-12 bombs in the 500kg weight range on targets... presumably wide area targets... using gliding bombs it could release the bombs from a much larger standoff range meaning less likely to alert the target it is under attack... and not costing much more.

Even without proper guidance system you could fit the glide package with a simple gyro to keep it flying straight and level to make its flight path rather predictable and therefore still rather accurate.

Because dumb bombs are not so dumb since the modern targeting system in the bomber will make them land very close to their intended target.

Such targeting system don't work if your bomb has to glide for 30km and get its trajectory corrected by the wind.

You need to make your gliding bomb smart enough to land where it is supposed to land. If not you will use a cheap bomb to bomb nothing. Not useful.

Isos , it's early to say if it's useless

How do you know Gefest was not updated ? Maybe the computer can give accuracy to glide bomb

If gefest worked with parachute bomb, it probably can give accuracy to glide weapon

They should be working on next Gefest iteration, but nothing is known, except that development work is done in new Era Technopolis.

Uses for dumb glide bombs are many. I really like this design. In the future they could even attach a relatively cheap laser or tv guidance system to the glide body itself. All in one and then easily gripped to the dumb bomb.

gefest cant control the wind

Isos , it's early to say if it's useless

How do you know Gefest was not updated ? Maybe the computer can give accuracy to glide bomb

If gefest worked with parachute bomb, it probably can give accuracy to glide weapon

It won't help. You can easily see where a dumb bomb will fall because it just falls down.

A gliding bomb flys. You can't predict how it will fly. You have to correct the trajectory during its flight.

Inertial correction is still a guidance system, less efficient than satellite one (and the performance stated show it suite clearly) bit still viabile almost against an adversary that have just SHORADS.

I agree. Modern inertial systems are very good and precise.

Glide bombs are supposed to replace dumb bombs. They are supposed to hit protected targets, AD systems or use their stand off range for undetected strikes.

So the goal is not to have thousands of them but be able to produce one when needed that is less expensive than a kh-29 and in good numbers to destroy plenty of key targets when needed.

You need to make your gliding bomb smart enough to land where it is supposed to land.

Well you are assuming they are planning to use these bombs against specific targets, but what if they are planning to use these bombs in saturation attacks?
If that's the case then precision would be irrelevant and the ability to glide would allow Russian aviation to attack an enemy position without coming into range of their manpads.

Well I said unguided glide bombs are still precise enough for leveling cities.

It won't help. You can easily see where a dumb bomb will fall because it just falls down.

A gliding bomb flys. You can't predict how it will fly. You have to correct the trajectory during its flight.

Gliding bombs don't fly. They also fall down, gliding along the way. They're not proper aircraft but heavy dense non-aerodynamic chunks of metal and explosives with wings attached to extend their path down to Earth.

The problem of calculating their flight-path we can relate to that of another military field we've heard about, namely that of non-ballistic atmospheric re-entry for things like warhead buses or asteroids

It's not a trivial problem to work out but nonetheless a solvable one with some accuracy. After all we can witness the advent of maneuverable hyper-sonic glide vehicles such as the Avangard, which undertake maneuvers to evade missile defenses. If it wasn't theoretically possible for missile defense systems to determine their trajectories in the first place and intercept them - then there would have been no need to add maneuver capability to them; it would have been enough for them to simply glide.
And this means that an on-board aircraft computer can calculate the trajectory of a gliding bomb that it releases with good accuracy, especially if it accounts for the wind speed at the moment of release, factors in local meteorological data, and is utilizing them at a lower altitude or a higher speed; limiting the range but giving less time for error to compound until impact.
In fact the comparison I made to atmospheric reentry is merely illustrative, being rather excessive in reality. An actual gliding trajectory under ideal conditions is pretty much a straight line that you can calculate with trigonometry alone (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/glidprob.html).. which actually makes them a lot easier to work out than ballistic trajectories of any kind.

Yes both gliding bombs and hypersonic gliding vehicles will be affected by winds and turbulence but in both cases they have a huge amount of inertia minimizing this effect on account of their density and speed respectively.

Well you are assuming they are planning to use these bombs against specific targets, but what if they are planning to use these bombs in saturation attacks?
If that's the case then precision would be irrelevant and the ability to glide would allow Russian aviation to attack an enemy position without coming into range of their manpads.

This is also a very reasonable use-case, kind of like how Su-25s and Ka-52s have been witnessed lobbing unguided rockets into the air to serve as a kind of indirect artillery against enemy troop concentrations.

Even at max range and altitude, a wing of aircraft releasing their payloads of glide bombs would still have a good idea where these bombs will end up, and if the purpose is to inflict a Grad-type barrage over a square area - then some dispersion or inaccuracy would not be a disadvantage in any case.

Very useful for when the enemy is gathering or known to be somewhere which happens to be outside the range of your deployed artillery.

I find it a little beyond belief that the bomb will glide for 6.5km from an initial altitude of 200m

Would have to be a hell of an initial speed for that at any rate

No you can't calculate their trajectory. A 3° course correction by air turbulences means you hit far away from your aiming point. The further the your glide bomb the bigger that mistake becomes and the more air turbulences the more it will correct its trajectory and push it away from its trajectory.

Onboard computers can't know micro climat events. They have a general data about big meteorogical situation but certainly don't know how the wind blows in the every cm3 of the area.