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

Not sure accelerating to 0.3% the speed of light to deploy your guide bombs is feasible in this day and age

Isos wrote: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.

You'd get a 3 degree course correction from turbulence, or maybe a 300 degree one - if you were a paper airplane, not a gliding 250kg bomb with stub wings

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.

It's rather superfluous information, you no more need to know that to put a gliding bomb within 10m of the target then you need to know it to put a dumb bomb with 5m

Actual planes get pushed let and right like paper plane by the wind and air turbulences. That small bomb would end km away from its target without a guidance system.

Wings are made to be affected by wind. That's their purpose...

800-1100 km/s
That was the original Bazalt statement from 20 years ago.

Not sure accelerating to 0.3% the speed of light to deploy your guide bombs is feasible in this day and age

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that.

Actual planes get pushed let and right like paper plane by the wind and air turbulences. That small bomb would end km away from its target without a guidance system.

Wings are made to be affected by wind. That's their purpose...

Wings are meant to provide a surface for air to flow faster over the top of, then around the bottom of. This process generates lift.

The same lift is generated when gliding, but it is not enough because there is no method of propulsion. All the wings can do is provide a measure of lift enough to slow down the descent due to gravity.

Wind speed and direction can affect the amount of lift provided a little, but this can be calculated for.

The only thing that could realistically lead to a gliding bomb going far off course is turbulence of the sort where there is a downdraft or other phenomenon which leads to anything in the air quickly loosing altitude as the process of generating lift is interrupted (essentially you momentarily end up in a stall). Simply put however such turbulence is rare, it usually occurs over mountains or jet-streams of some kinds. It can be ignored for the Ukraine.
Turbulence caused by the wind changing directions and lifting one wing higher than the other, etc... can occur, but it shouldn't have such a dramatic effect; unlike on an aircraft, on a gliding bomb there are no flight surfaces or ailerons other than the wings, which are tiny relative to its mass, and the bomb is not in the air for long - it's inertia will keep it locked to its course.

If you look carefully at the "glide-set", specifically the back end of it, you will see two additional tail planes that look like they may be movable (rotationally along their longitudinal axis) and thus may act as stabilators; this would also explain why the main body of the glide set is bigger there, forming what looks like a kind of box, which may contain, e.g. a battery and electric motors to control these stabilators...with those the glide bomb would have pitch control and even some roll control, which can be used to steer it left and right a bit. The actual guidance would then be provided by a small computer using either some kind of GLONASS module that cannot be clearly identified on that image or an inertial navigation system inside the body of the "strap-on set" or, perhaps, even pure command guidance by some aircraft far away tracking the bomb's position with its radar (unlikely).

Just to add a bit: once deployed, the bomb will likely flip 180°, such that the glide-set will be on top (probably one wing is first deployed and shortly thereafter the other)...so then the "belly" of the glide-set (as seen in the image) will be pointing toward the unobstructed sky. So it's not far-fetched to suspect a GLONASS kit in the body of the glide-set below some kind of composite material window on the belly surface, which can not be seen on the image.

Wings are meant to provide a surface for air to flow faster over the top of, then around the bottom of. This process generates lift.

Wings are made to be affected by air flow. Wind is an air flow.

There is no way you can use a targeting systems for a gliding bomb.

And there is no way you can hit something with a gliding bomb that doesn't correct its trajectory during its flight that can be long of few tens of kms.

You need to have no clue of how physics work to pretend the opposite.

ZOKA
@200_zoka
Brothers just need to ask Iran or China

---
The Iranian version is probably started by SU-22 (Iranian upgrade version ex Iraq) or F-4.

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.

The glide package can have gyros on it to keep it flying straight and level the way they can make drones hover... multi angle gyros can keep a falling... gliding bomb on a consistent flight path which makes it predictable so the modern targeting systems in the bomber that allow good precision with dumb unguided bombs can also make dumb bombs with basic glider kits with simple gyros to keep it flying level and straight and not be effected by cross winds etc.

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.

The thing is with the Russians their dumb unguided bombs don't have precision aiming kits like the west, Russian precision guided bombs come with a warhead and guidance as a package.

The gliding kits to add to dumb bomb are not to replace guided bombs with glide fins... they are more comparable to the way we have seen their aircraft use unguided rockets against area targets... to allow release from greater distances... glide bombs would probably be toss bombed to extend their reach while being released at low altitude and at high speed.

The Russians have an enormous number of different types of air to ground ordinance from gliding 1.5 ton bombs to the air launched Grom, which comes in two modular versions... one with a bomb and a solid rocket fuel section for standoff targets and another model where the solid rocket fuel is replaced with more HE... in both cases the weapon has wings and glides to the target, but obviously the one with the rocket fuel can reach further... both are guided.

They also have glide cluster bomb dispensors:



Note the bomb in the foreground is the RBK-500U cluster bomb, while the bomb in the rack behind it is the PBK-500U gliding version.



Some are not obvious like this glide bomb... UPAB-1500 with x shaped folding wings...

According to Bazalts advert I have here, the MPK is a gliding and correction module kit that comes in four versions. The simplest is the one shown earlier and is the cheapest and most basic... it stabilises the bomb in flight with no homing and is intended to allow the bomb to hit targets 6-7km away from a low altitude release, the second variant has simple gyro stabilisation allowing targets 12-15km away to be hit effectively, the third variant has a satellite receiver added to hit targets 40-60km away, and the most advanced version has a pulsejet engine attached to extend range to 80-100km.

gefest cant control the wind

Doesn't need to... released at high speed at low altitude it wont make much difference, and over greater distance the auto gyro or the guidance systems will correct...

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

Can't predict how an aircraft will fly?

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.

Sounds like a very simplified and restricted use of a weapon intended for area targets.

In this case the glide component is not to turn a dumb bomb into a cruise missile... the purpose is to shift the impact point and time several kms and several seconds so an aircraft can deliver a bomb attack but not fly close to the target it is bombing... as I said for the Russians this is the equivalent of firing the unguided rockets up into the air at targets so they can be attacked from a safe distance.

If the target is a bridge or a tank then a guided missile would make more sense, but if the target is troops in a light tree covered area then 6 glide bombs of 100kg released 12km away by an Su-34 moving at near sonic speeds at 40m altitude might be the tactic used.

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

That was the purpose of the kits...

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.

All those problems effect dumb bombs yet Gefest & T still make systems that calculate accurate delivery trajectories... do you think a glide path is impossible to calculate because that turbulence and crosswind also effects unguided rockets too...

Smerch and Uragan and Grad must be useless...

Actual planes get pushed let and right like paper plane by the wind and air turbulences. That small bomb would end km away from its target without a guidance system.

Wings are made to be affected by wind. That's their purpose...

That is why only guided bullets hit people...

Brothers just need to ask Iran or China

No, they don't, Russia already has a wide range of gliding bombs and does not need Chinese or Iranian or American types... it seems the French don't have any gliding bombs because they are impossible.

And Grom 1 and Grom 2... both with wings and a HE payload... one has a rocket motor and the other replaces the rocket fuel with a lot more HE... both are technically glide bombs:

Yeah I think mass production of Grom would be more than warranted. That would enable the Su-34 to strike targets outside the range of MANPADS and the Buk and Osa systems Ukraine has and be much cheaper than the Kh-59 they do have. They should just produce the solid rocket glide version of it. Anything with a turbojet will be more expensive and harder to handle since you need to load fuel into the missile. Grom-E2 should be the most cost effective while Grom-E1 would outrange even most of Ukrainian S-300 systems.

In addition putting MAWS into the Su-34, like already available on Su-35, would reduce losses to IR guided MANPADS.

If Russia wants help from China they should just ask for satellite intelligence on Ukraine and NATO supplies to them. That would have minimum chance for blowback and the Chinese have way more reconnaissance satellites than Russia at this moment after 8 years of Western sanctions on satellite components.

If you look at the two rear fins of the new glide bomb they are clearly mobile, so chances are it is guided.

I suspect it's more like GarryB's suggestion

Some sort of gyro or other auto-stabilization mechanism, just to make sure that any turbulence that banks the bomb is counter-acted

All those problems effect dumb bombs yet Gefest & T still make systems that calculate accurate delivery trajectories... do you think a glide path is impossible to calculate because that turbulence and crosswind also effects unguided rockets too...

Smerch and Uragan and Grad must be useless...

You need some physics classes.

Rockets, artillery and mortar shells don't have wings. They also rotate on themselves in order to decrease winds effects on them.

The further you fire them the less precisie they are which what I said for the gliding bombs. Actually it's worse for gliding bombs since they are made to be affected by air flow and wind.

This argument prove my point rather than yours.

Can't predict how an aircraft will fly?

No you can't. Get in a plane, don't turn on the autopilot, don't touch the joystick and you will see if it flies straight.

A hint: it won't fly straight. Same for gliding bombs or anything that has wings.

The glide package can have gyros on it to keep it flying straight and level the way they can make drones hover... multi angle gyros can keep a falling... gliding bomb on a consistent flight path which makes it predictable so the modern targeting systems in the bomber that allow good precision with dumb unguided bombs can also make dumb bombs with basic glider kits with simple gyros to keep it flying level and straight and not be effected by cross winds etc.

It needs some sort of guidance system. The cheaper the better.

Gliding bombs and gliding package for old bombs are supposed to do what an expensive missile would do. Not as good but not bad too.

If you can give it a 10-20 CEP then it will destroy the target. Bombs of 250-1000kg have enough power to transform any target into dust at such ranges.

If you wabt better precision use a missile.

Yeah I think mass production of Grom would be more than warranted. That would enable the Su-34 to strike targets outside the range of MANPADS and the Buk and Osa systems Ukraine has and be much cheaper than the Kh-59 they do have. They should just produce the solid rocket glide version of it.

The rocket powered model has a range of between 10km and 120km with a 320kg warhead... an all up weight of just under 600kgs so even an Su-25 should be able to carry them... what is interesting is that it can be used at targets at an angle of up to 180 (+-) degrees away from the point of release... so it can be used against targets behind the launch aircraft.

The unpowered version has a range up to 50km, the same all up weight of just under 600kgs, but it has an additional 130kgs warhead together with the 320kg original warhead making it a 450kg warhead, which is pretty decent.

50km is a decent standoff range and the extra payload weight would have better effect on target too.

Anything with a turbojet will be more expensive and harder to handle since you need to load fuel into the missile.

How many solid rocket propelled aircraft or cars or trucks or trains are there?

Internal combustion engines are generally more efficient because its fuel is just fuel... whereas a solid rocket motors fuel needs a large oxygen component to be included which massively increases the volume and weight of its "fuel".

I agree the rocket motor makes sense on this weapon, but for long range weapons with long endurance a turbojet or scramjet makes sense too.

In addition putting MAWS into the Su-34, like already available on Su-35, would reduce losses to IR guided MANPADS.

Why do you think the Su-34 does not have MAWS?

If Russia wants help from China they should just ask for satellite intelligence on Ukraine and NATO supplies to them. That would have minimum chance for blowback and the Chinese have way more reconnaissance satellites than Russia at this moment after 8 years of Western sanctions on satellite components.

If Russia lacks satellites then the solution is to build and launch some...

You need some physics classes.

Everybody does... it is a complex area.

Rockets, artillery and mortar shells don't have wings. They also rotate on themselves in order to decrease winds effects on them.

Fantastic analysis... perhaps you can break it to Russian troops using old model RPG-7 rockets whose tail fins caught in cross winds required aiming compensation into the crosswind...

On an RPG-7 rocket the tail fins flip open and are thin but rather long... the rocket exhaust on an RPG-7 rocket is just behind the warhead and well ahead of the fins that give it a slow roll to stabilise it in flight, so a cross wind pushes the tail obviously in the direction of the wind, which turns the nose in to the wind and the rocket motor propels it forward as it turns into the wind so a wind blowing from left to right you don't aim down wind to compensate for the wind you aim the same distance up wind to get a hit... isn't physics fun?

Hot air balloons don't have wings either are they not effected by the wind?

Wings are about lift to keep something in the air... with a gyro that keeps the bomb straight and level a crosswind is not going to blow the aircraft off course by an enormous amount... and cross winds can be compensated for too... it is all part of the calculation... for long range ballistic missile and artillery shell flights you actually have to take into account the rate at which the earth spins... crosswinds are not that much of a big problem over shorter distances that the unguided models will be used for.

The further you fire them the less precisie they are which what I said for the gliding bombs. Actually it's worse for gliding bombs since they are made to be affected by air flow and wind.

And your mistake is to think glide bombs need to be precision weapons that take out tiny precise targets.

An Su-25 carrying 8 x 250kg bombs with glide kits would use them the same way it would use 80mm rockets in rocket pods... fly towards the location of the target and at the max glide range of the weapons pitch up and release at top speed... the natural dispersion of the bombs is like the natural dispersion of the 80mm rockets when they loft them.... it MAKES THEM MORE EFFECTIVE.

The last thing in the world they want is for all the gliding bombs to land the same distance apart that they were launched... 8 x 250kg bombs landing 10km away the distance apart that they are on the Su-25s wing would be a horrible waste of weapons... the shrapnel from bomb number one will kill everything that bomb number 8s shrapnel will kill.... you might as well just drop one bomb... or you could not waste your time making cheap simple weapons used against area targets super expensive and use them as intended... the enemy troops are moving forward at this coordinate... drop a spread of bombs over this area to make it hard for them... crosswinds will effect all the bombs so the impact area wont get that much bigger, but the cluster of bomb impacts will be shifted by any crosswind...

No you can't. Get in a plane, don't turn on the autopilot, don't touch the joystick and you will see if it flies straight.

A hint: it won't fly straight. Same for gliding bombs or anything that has wings.

An autopilot is not smart... it just uses autogyros to fly level and straight on a specific heading... even the cheapest dumbest most crap 200 dollar drones have better than that these days.

In fact that is essentially what NLAW has...

Except a Russian equivalent would not cost 20K pounds like those pieces of crap do.

It needs some sort of guidance system. The cheaper the better.

It is a dumb bomb, it doesn't need any guidance except decent delivery guidance.

Gliding bombs and gliding package for old bombs are supposed to do what an expensive missile would do. Not as good but not bad too.

Guided gliding bomb packages make the old cheap bombs more expensive than actual guided missiles, and are redundant most of the time.

If you can give it a 10-20 CEP then it will destroy the target. Bombs of 250-1000kg have enough power to transform any target into dust at such ranges.

If you are using a guided weapon of 1,000kgs then it is a very hard target.... a glide bomb would make sense to use first to take down enemy air defences where the enemy has very strong air defences... most of the time anti radiation missiles would make rather more sense... TOR can easily shoot down gliding bombs as easily as it can shoot down high speed anti radiation missiles.

Russian use of glide bombs would be like their use of rockets where they loft them at targets... hitting point targets makes more sense to use cheap drones or artillery.

If you wabt better precision use a missile.

Most of the most expensive Russian weapons are cheaper than the cheapest western weapons... what makes sense for the west does not always make sense for Russia.

Fantastic analysis... perhaps you can break it to Russian troops using old model RPG-7 rockets whose tail fins caught in cross winds required aiming compensation into the crosswind...

On an RPG-7 rocket the tail fins flip open and are thin but rather long... the rocket exhaust on an RPG-7 rocket is just behind the warhead and well ahead of the fins that give it a slow roll to stabilise it in flight, so a cross wind pushes the tail obviously in the direction of the wind, which turns the nose in to the wind and the rocket motor propels it forward as it turns into the wind so a wind blowing from left to right you don't aim down wind to compensate for the wind you aim the same distance up wind to get a hit... isn't physics fun?

Hot air balloons don't have wings either are they not effected by the wind?

I said they reduced impact of the air flow. Artillery is precise at close range. The further you fire the more you loose in precision because of externak factor like temperature, wind and the unperfect design of the shells.

Wings on glide bombs are made to be impacted by the air flow so the wind will have hard impact on them.

Same for rpg-7. 100% accurate at 50m but good luck touching anything at 1000m.

Basic physics.

And your mistake is to think glide bombs need to be precision weapons that take out tiny precise targets.

Yes they need a certain precision. Even for carpet bombing. If your carpet bombing misses by 500m the target is still standing and you lost tens of bombs for nothing.

An autopilot is not smart... it just uses autogyros to fly level and straight on a specific heading... even the cheapest dumbest most crap 200 dollar drones have better than that these days.

In fact that is essentially what NLAW has...

Except a Russian equivalent would not cost 20K pounds like those pieces of crap do.

Yeah so why does russian companies buy western planes with western autopilots ? They carry thousand of passenger hourly those autopilots. They are certainly not crap or made out of few autogyros...

But that's not the point here. My point is no pilot, no computer controling the wings in a plane, you let that plane uncontrolled and it will quickly change its course. Same for gliding bombs.

Most of the most expensive Russian weapons are cheaper than the cheapest western weapons... what makes sense for the west does not always make sense for Russia.

Ask any export customer of russian MiC if their weapons are as cheap as you pretend...

They are just as expensive. So at the end they will buy western stuff. That's actually happening. They are loosing clients everywhere for western or 3rd party like south korean or japanese stuff.

For very cheap stuff China beats Russia.

I think all of you are saying it right, each in its own way:

Look, it's just for this reason this new kit came in 4 different version.

In the not guided one toss bombing mode allow it to be precise until 7 km as in this range launch energy is sufficient enough to counteract outside forces.
To reach 14 km range they add an inertial system that apply corrections to the asset.

I think than in case of SAT guidance they didn't just use toss up from low quote anymore but start already in quote and even more with RAP.
IMHO the real deal is the second mode, first useful but no such a big fuss, for the third and fourth better use specific made items.

Wings on glide bombs are made to be impacted by the air flow so the wind will have hard impact on them.

Perhaps you are confusing a wing with a sail?

A side wind will effect a 250kg bomb pretty much the same whether it has wings or not because wings stick out sideways and therefore catch very little in the way of side drafts.

If these glide kits had massive vertical tails then you might have a point but again a gyro would detect the turning and correct it by turning into the wind to remain on track.

Same for rpg-7. 100% accurate at 50m but good luck touching anything at 1000m.

Basic physics.

Couple of things... chance of hitting things at 1,000m is zero because the rockets self destruct at about 930-950m. Second point... the rockets move at more than 380m/s so how far do you think the rockets will move off point of aim in about 3 seconds (the self destruction mechanism is part of the rocket motor... when it burns out the warhead is set off so it does not coast any distance in unpowered flight).

Crosswinds can be observed and countered... the targeting reticule on an RPG-7 optic has a grid to counter the effect of a moving target but also the effect of a crosswind that is included in working out the aim point to use.

Yes they need a certain precision. Even for carpet bombing. If your carpet bombing misses by 500m the target is still standing and you lost tens of bombs for nothing.

There you are... missing THE target... if the target is one point then you use a guided weapon to hit it... a mortar and a sniper rifle are not interchangeable tools where you can use either or for any given target...

Yeah so why does russian companies buy western planes with western autopilots

They don't now, but mostly bribes or threats of sanctions.

My point is no pilot, no computer controling the wings in a plane, you let that plane uncontrolled and it will quickly change its course. Same for gliding bombs.

An autopilot can be as complex and expensive as you can make it, like western overpriced over engineered shit, but it can be very simple too... maintaining speed (in vehicles with engines), maintaining altitude, and maintaining a flight bearing... in which case it WILL NOT CHANGE COURSE... that is what an autopilot DOES.

Ask any export customer of russian MiC if their weapons are as cheap as you pretend...

They are just as expensive. So at the end they will buy western stuff. That's actually happening. They are loosing clients everywhere for western or 3rd party like south korean or japanese stuff.

Western sanctions and laws like CAASTA suggest that when it happens it has nothing to do with the price or performance... Turkey has bought S-400s, India is buying S-400s... they both had a choice to buy anything they wanted.

The west is getting more and more polarised and to be with them you have to buy their shit... especially their expensive shit like the F-35 that doesn't even really work properly yet. When Tempest fails and Europe is forced to buy F-35s think about that.

For very cheap stuff China beats Russia.

China is a production powerhouse, in some areas they compete very well, but in many areas they are only ahead of the west.

I think all of you are saying it right, each in its own way:

Look, it's just for this reason this new kit came in 4 different version.

In the not guided one toss bombing mode allow it to be precise until 7 km as in this range launch energy is sufficient enough to counteract outside forces.
To reach 14 km range they add an inertial system that apply corrections to the asset.

I think than in case of SAT guidance they didn't just use toss up from low quote anymore but start already in quote and even more with RAP.
IMHO the real deal is the second mode, first useful but no such a big fuss, for the third and fourth better use specific made items.

Russia does not need to copy the west and has different requirements.

Russia still sees value in short range unguided weapons so the shorter range glide kits are just replacing flying over the target area dropping dumb bombs.

This is not to replace missiles because they would not use missiles for such targets... the two weapons they would use would be dumb bombs and dumb rockets both for targets spotted at the last few seconds or known to be located at specific coordinates at a specific time.

Lofting rockets and gliding bombs allow the same targets to be engaged with the same cheap weapons with a bit of dispersion to spread out the explosives and fragments to better cover an area target.

The medium and long range glide kits have guidance and would replace missiles like the old Kh-25 and the new Kh-38... the former missile only having a 90 odd kg warhead so most bombs would deliver a better payload, but the Kh-38 has a decent 250kg payload... if a target needs something heavier or the target is a large group of tanks then gliding cluster bomb units with anti armour bomblets would make more sense than a missile with the glide kit taking the munition to a point just short of the centre of mass of the armoured vehicles...

The Grom 1 and Grom 2 are for long and medium range targets and has guidance too.

They have more capability than western weapons yet still HATO fanboys cry that Russia must buy Indian or Chinese or Iranian weapons...

Not to say those countries don't have clever weapons.

February 8, 01:08

The source reported on the effectiveness of the "air-radar" missile with a new "head" during the SMO
It has a "universal warhead that can work on all types of targets"

MOSCOW, 8 February. /TASS/. An air-to-air missile developed and manufactured by the Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV) during a special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine showed the highest efficiency thanks to a new universal warhead. This was reported to TASS by a source in the military-industrial complex (DIC).
"The newest air-to-radar missile was equipped with the latest universal warhead capable of operating on all types of targets," he said.

The interlocutor of the agency noted the success of its combat use during the NWO. According to him, the previous missile of this class had three different "heads", which were used depending on the target intended for destruction.

In October 2022, another source in the defense industry told TASS that the air-radar missile produced by KTRV showed an efficiency of over 98% during the SVO. At that time, several dozen missiles were used, product indices were not specified.

About the missile

According to the catalog of military products KTRV, we can talk about an aviation high-speed air-to-radar Kh-31PD missile designed to destroy radar stations, anti-aircraft missile systems and systems. According to the booklet, the maximum launch range of the missile is 250 km, it can be launched from an air carrier from a height of 15 km, and the mass of the warhead is 110 kg. Its predecessor is the Kh-31P missile.

Earlier, TASS also reported that during the SMO, almost the entire line of promising aviation weapons developed and produced by KTRV was successfully tested.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/16989553

An excellent opportunity to test experimental new and even older weapons against HATO equipment like battlefield radar and air defence systems.

"Product 305" will change the principle of warfare, by Alexander Timokhin for VZGLYAD. 03.03.2023.

The Izdeliye 305 rocket will open up new opportunities for the Russian Aerospace Forces in the NVO zone.

The latest development of the Russian military-industrial complex is able to turn the situation that has developed in the air of the special operation zone. Russian aviation is acting extremely carefully to protect pilots and vehicles from enemy fire. However, the Product 305 - if used correctly - creates new rules for the game on the battlefield. In what way?

The fighting in Ukraine was not easy for the Russian Aerospace Forces. On the one hand, Ukrainian aviation has no chance against Russian aircraft, and the statistics of downed Ukrainian aircraft is quite impressive. On the other hand, it has not yet been possible to completely suppress Ukrainian air defense. This is especially noticeable from the point of view of the work of aviation along the front line of the enemy.

The result of this state of affairs was the method by which the front-line aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces operates today. These are launches of unguided missiles from a pitch-up. Cabrating is a special maneuver, a kind of jump that a pilot makes to strike at a target. It provides greater security from enemy air defenses.

However, this method has problems. Firstly, it still does not guarantee complete security from air defense. And secondly, such launches, to put it mildly, are inaccurate. There are too many factors to consider in order to put such a volley exactly on the target.

But in a curious way, the same Russian Aerospace Forces have already tested weapons during the NWO, which can become our future means of working along the front line, and very accurate and powerful, with which you can safely work on the enemy on the line of contact (LBS). The problem of working on point targets on the battlefield completely solves. What is it about?

"Product 305" and air support

Let's formulate the task: you need to hit the target on the battlefield, but without flying up to the line of contact. Is there a weapon in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces that can be used against targets moving across the battlefield, seeing their progress, controlling the means of destruction to prevent a miss, and at the same time keeping the weapon carrier at a safe distance from the front line? Yes, there are such weapons.

"Product 305", known as LMUR, is a light multi-purpose guided missile. A product that (if its price is kept within acceptable limits) can become a real hit on the battlefield.

LMUR - a rocket weighing 105 kg, carrying a fairly heavy warhead - 25 kg. Being retrofitted with special suspension units, it can be used by Ka-52 and Mi-28 helicopters. Also, several Mi-8 special-purpose helicopters were built for the FSB, capable of using an early version of this weapon.

The missile’s range of 14.5 kilometers, as well as a very small loss of altitude when launched from a carrier, makes it possible to use it from a distance at which portable anti-aircraft missile systems, machine guns and small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery cannot reach it in range, and full-fledged anti-aircraft missile systems will be very it is difficult to detect an aircraft flying at an ultra-low altitude.

The combat use of this missile since 2022 in Ukraine confirms this. The use of LMUR (at least, as far as can be judged from open sources) was safe for carriers - our helicopters.

Was it effective? Yes, it is quite. The combat unit of the LMUR was quite enough to destroy any armored vehicle up to the tank and to destroy small buildings. Several missiles were used to destroy large objects. Some of the shortcomings of this rocket completely cover its main advantage - it can be controlled by the operator from the carrier in flight, like a drone, just a disposable one. And this gives our troops new opportunities.

All helicopter anti-tank guided missiles and many aircraft air-to-surface guided missiles require the aircraft crew to first locate the target. And for this you need to be in line of sight with her. This allows enemy air defense systems to at least detect the carrier, as a maximum - if the range allows - to open fire on it.

For a long time, the only missile that could be launched from an aircraft from outside the air defense zone, and then manually guided from its side, was the Kh-59 guided missile and a number of its modifications. But these are large and expensive missiles carried by the Su-24M front-line bomber and a number of other heavy aircraft. You can't use such a missile against a tank. It can only be spent on a serious purpose that justifies its cost.

LMUR is a missile that can be used against a tank, but at the same time it gives the carrier the opportunity not to be in the line of sight with the target, remaining invisible behind the terrain at low altitude. If the position of the target, even a moving one, is approximately known, then the operator will find it through the missile lens and accurately point it, without even approaching the enemy.

And this raises an interesting question. Why are our combat helicopters so "cool"? The same Ka-52 has powerful armor, ejection seats, and many more complex systems that it needs. What is this all for?

For survival. Everything that is possible will shoot at the helicopter. Anti-aircraft missiles will be launched at him, anti-aircraft shells will burst in the air next to him ... if he works with his usual weapons - anti-tank and unguided rockets and guns. And LMUR takes him out from under fire. With this missile, he will operate from a relatively safe distance from fire from the ground.

And this, in turn, means a sharp decrease in the requirements for the carrier - now the Mi-8 also has sufficient security, or even some hypothetical, now defunct light aircraft. What difference does it make if you have armor or not if they don't shoot at you?

This should not be understood as a call to abandon full-fledged attack helicopters in favor of something else. But LMUR as a weapon gives Russia the opportunity to dramatically increase the number of strike units in aviation. And they will not risk under the fire of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they simply have nothing else to do under this fire.

You can put the control post directly in the cargo compartment of the Mi-8 and use these missiles from it. You can use them even with the An-2, if pressed. Again, this is not a recommendation, but simply a demonstration of the versatility of the weapon created. But one issue must be resolved, which, to tell the truth, has long been overripe.

UAV for strike aircraft

As mentioned above, if the operator knows approximately where the target is, then he will find it through the "head" of the rocket after launch. But if the accuracy of information about the target is insufficient? Then it simply will not fall into the field of view of a missile moving along the course, and it cannot maneuver like a winged drone.

Since we are arming the aircraft with a missile that allows us to strike from afar, then we will have to share the strike weapon with the reconnaissance one. This means moving the “eyes” of an attack helicopter or aircraft forward, towards the enemy, to a place where our attack vehicle not only does not exist, but will never exist. Today, this can only be done with the help of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Moreover, the expensive, heavy and complex "Orion" is not at all necessary, something like "Orlan-10" is enough.

"Orlan-10" cannot perform a joint flight with a helicopter or aircraft. But this is not necessary. Where there is enemy activity, forward air controllers (PAN) should operate. The latter may well, on command from an attack helicopter or aircraft, lift something like the Orlan into the air.

And here we need that technical possibility, which is not difficult to implement, but which has not yet been implemented. The control of the UAV after takeoff must be transferred to the attack manned aircraft, from which the LMUR is launched.

Then everything is simple. The pilots themselves conduct additional reconnaissance, starting from what they managed to find from the drone, use LMUR, record the results of the strike, and then return control of the drone to the ground group. All without approaching the line of contact. Almost no risk. And hitting targets with their missiles is extremely accurate.

These things should be started right away. All the equipment for this is not only at the disposal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, but has already been tested in battles, and there are weapons and aircraft. You just have to bring these things together. And then it turns out that no matter how much our country can produce expensive attack helicopters, the number of attacking units in the air can be increased many times over in a matter of months. For very little money. And losses, on the contrary, to reduce. If only there were enough of these missiles, which are not simple in design, the production of which must be increased as quickly as possible.

The only task that such a missile cannot solve near the LBS is the defeat of dispersed infantry. But for this there are other solutions that are quite effective. But everything that can be attributed to point targets, including mobile units such as tanks and self-propelled guns, can be destroyed very effectively in this way. It's time to take advantage of these opportunities.

https://vz.ru/society/2023/3/3/1201256.html

Armour and self protection equipment are always needed for platforms operating in a war zone because they only have to surprise you once to kill you.

And interestingly reading all that they say why not An-2/Baikal... I would ask why not an armoured vehicle...



Perhaps a pairing of one vehicle with missiles and one vehicle with drones and missiles... you wouldn't need a vehicle with 15 missiles and a vehicle with 15 drones because the drones are reusable and recoverable, so maybe a unit of 6 vehicles with 12 missiles each and two drones each... that would be 72 missiles and 12 drones per squad... maybe with a couple of Terminators for self defence and support against ground and air targets.

Such long range missiles are nice but what your image forget to show is that you need someone to find the target and have a direct and constant view on it to guided the missile.

Then it's just cheaper to equipe that guy with a metis and blow up that target.

Loitering munition are better than such long range missiles for most of the targets because it allows surveillance and a final attack.