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

sepheronx wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

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?

Don't know about back then, but after the 080808 war, it is determined that all existing and future Su-25's are to be upgraded with some sort of ECM systems (pods obviously) in order to deal with most SAM systems. Guided munitions are Kh-29 (which comes in various flavours: Laser guided, Radar guided, TV guided and IIR guided). Su-25 was capable of carrying guided munitions. Thing is, guided munitions were and are pretty expensive, and a well trained pilot could do without them. I would say these days though, ECM pods are very important and some sort of anti-radiation missile or TV guided missile will be important in dealing with air defence systems and rockets for the rest.

The problem is that of all the guided weapons cold war Su-25s used, NONE of them had any antitank capability, absolutely all of the were designed either for anti radar, command bunker destruction or logistics bombing while the mavericks had excellentb antitank capability whicvh would allow A10s to do standoff strikes against warsaw pact armored assaults, with the Su-25 it
was COMPLETELY impossivble to engage AFVs without having to fly into SAM range in order to attack NATO vehicles.

In other words, in a NATO-warsaw pact conflict, Su-25s, unlike their ancestor, the Il-2, would've only been useful for tactical strikes against static targets and maybe suppression and destruction of soft targets and infantry, and unlike the A10, would be ALMOST USELESS against NATO armored formations with legitimate SAM and AAA defence(gepards, mistrals, stingers, rolands, vulcan, ADATS, etc.)

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

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?

Don't know about back then, but after the 080808 war, it is determined that all existing and future Su-25's are to be upgraded with some sort of ECM systems (pods obviously) in order to deal with most SAM systems. Guided munitions are Kh-29 (which comes in various flavours: Laser guided, Radar guided, TV guided and IIR guided). Su-25 was capable of carrying guided munitions. Thing is, guided munitions were and are pretty expensive, and a well trained pilot could do without them. I would say these days though, ECM pods are very important and some sort of anti-radiation missile or TV guided missile will be important in dealing with air defence systems and rockets for the rest.

The problem is that of all the guided weapons cold war Su-25s used, NONE of them had any antitank capability, absolutely all of the were designed either for anti radar, command bunker destruction or logistics bombing while the mavericks had excellentb antitank capability whicvh would allow A10s to do standoff strikes against warsaw pact armored assaults, with the Su-25 it
was COMPLETELY impossivble to engage AFVs without having to fly into SAM range in order to attack NATO vehicles.

In other words, in a NATO-warsaw pact conflict, Su-25s, unlike their ancestor, the Il-2, would've only been useful for tactical strikes against static targets and maybe suppression and destruction of soft targets and infantry, and unlike the A10, would be ALMOST USELESS against NATO armored formations with legitimate SAM and AAA defence(gepards, mistrals, stingers, rolands, vulcan, ADATS, etc.)

The point of the plane is to bomb a specific target and get out. CAS is far better off by helicopter support, which the Mi-24 was intended to do. Anti-radiation weapons would deal with a lot of SAM systems, while the plane would drop TV guided bombs on a formation before the formation could return fire.

The problem is that of all the guided weapons cold war Su-25s used, NONE of them had any antitank capability, absolutely all of the were designed either for anti radar, command bunker destruction or logistics bombing while the mavericks had excellentb antitank capability whicvh would allow A10s to do standoff strikes against warsaw pact armored assaults, with the Su-25 it
was COMPLETELY impossivble to engage AFVs without having to fly into SAM range in order to attack NATO vehicles.

Su-25 was not a strike aircraft, nor was it anti tank... think of it more in terms of being a Stuka rather than a Shturmovik.

... and a 250kg bomb will destroy any armoured vehicle with a direct hit BTW.

If a Soviet unit was attacking a well defended position and had SAMs defending it the Su-17/22s or Mig-27s would likely use Kh-25MP missiles with a standoff range of 40km or so. Su-25s would be armed with rockets and bombs but for anti armour roles they would take anti armour submunitions bombs with top attack explosively formed fragments munitions to wipe out large numbers of tanks rapidly.

In other words, in a NATO-warsaw pact conflict, Su-25s, unlike their ancestor, the Il-2, would've only been useful for tactical strikes against static targets and maybe suppression and destruction of soft targets and infantry, and unlike the A10, would be ALMOST USELESS against NATO armored formations with legitimate SAM and AAA defence(gepards, mistrals, stingers, rolands, vulcan, ADATS, etc.)

Unlike? Gepards, Mistrals, Stingers, Rolands, Vulcan, ADATS... Gepards are very few in number... only the West Germans used those, Mistrals and Stingers are only MANPADS, Roland is a useful system, Vulcan was rubbish, and ADATS was not very widely deployed at all.

In comparison the A-10 has to fight through Igla, Tunguska-M, TOR, OSA, Shilka, SA-9, SA-13, and SA-11/17... and in rather greater numbers than NATO deploys their air defence systems.

Both aircraft are COIN aircraft and neither would have lasted very long in WWIII.

Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

Actually the Su-25 regularly carried the AS-10 (Kh-25ML), which was ideal for its mission to support troops... the troops could lase the target and the Su-25 could launch the missile from stand off distances.

In actual practise however enemy air defences didn't really warrant such weapons and such tactics very often so bombs and rockets and gunfire was generally used... and very effectively too I might add.

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

GarryB wrote:Actually the Su-25 regularly carried the AS-10 (Kh-25ML), which was ideal for its mission to support troops... the troops could lase the target and the Su-25 could launch the missile from stand off distances.

In actual practise however enemy air defences didn't really warrant such weapons and such tactics very often so bombs and rockets and gunfire was generally used... and very effectively too I might add.

If the Kh-25 isn't usable against vehicles then *how* exactly can it be used for infantry support. As far as I know it has a very limited scope of targets: SAM sights, Command bunkers and supply depots.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

GarryB wrote:Actually the Su-25 regularly carried the AS-10 (Kh-25ML), which was ideal for its mission to support troops... the troops could lase the target and the Su-25 could launch the missile from stand off distances.

In actual practise however enemy air defences didn't really warrant such weapons and such tactics very often so bombs and rockets and gunfire was generally used... and very effectively too I might add.

If the Kh-25 isn't usable against vehicles then *how* exactly can it be used for infantry support. As far as I know it has a very limited scope of targets: SAM sights, Command bunkers and supply depots.

It's a bomb. It can be used against anything.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

But all Su-25s could use Kh-25 and Kh-29, both of which provide standoff AT ability.

TR1 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

TR1 wrote:Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

Kh-29 did not exist?

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

But all Su-25s could use Kh-25 and Kh-29, both of which provide standoff AT ability.

Do they have HEAT warheads? I doubt a 90kg charge of the X-25 would destroy a leopard 2A4 or challenger I mk.2

As for X-29 that would definitely destroy tanks but is a bit of overkill.

I mean that almost all Su-25 models , unlike the A10 lack ANY type of antitank standoff capability.

The Su-25 is CAS, not dedicated anti armour.

For the majority of the time the Soviets/Russians would use armour and artillery to deal with enemy armour.

If the Kh-25 isn't usable against vehicles then *how* exactly can it be used for infantry support. As far as I know it has a very limited scope of targets: SAM sights, Command bunkers and supply depots.

Kh-25ML is laser homing and can destroy pretty much anything you care to point a laser at.

Its 90kg warhead would take out any armoured vehicle ever built... and if it had problems there is the Kh-29 in TV and laser homing models each with a 317kg HE warhead that will destroy any armoured vehicle from standoff ranges.

Do they have HEAT warheads? I doubt a 90kg charge of the X-25 would destroy a leopard 2A4 or challenger I mk.2

50kg IED destroyed Abrams tanks.

As for X-29 that would definitely destroy tanks but is a bit of overkill.

You could use Kh-29 by aiming the laser at the ground between enemy tanks and kill them two at a time...

Su-25 is not anti armour... it is a combat support vehicle. Its main targets are enemy positions and bunkers.

Roles for which unguided rockets and bombs are perfectly adequate... as well as gunfire.

WoW .... enjoy













LINK

So PAKFA may only able to carry maximum of 2 KH-58U's with 1 in each bay ?

Stealthflanker wrote:So PAKFA may only able to carry maximum of 2 KH-58U's in each bay ?

That was always the idea- just compare size.

Tactical Missiles Corporation will present the aviation precision tactical missiles Kh-59MK2. Despite its similarity index with the family of the famous missiles "air-surface" X-59 / X-59M missile, Kh-59MK2 according to available information, is almost entirely a new development and is essentially an analog of the famous western KR same class AGM-158 JASSM, Scalp EG / Storm Shadow and Taurus. Kh-59MK2 made in the fuselage contours with Stealth and has a significant range of fire (in the illustrated embodiment, the exhibition officially confined limits Missile Technology Control Regime in the "290 km"). The claimed performance characteristics of the missile shown in the picture.







http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1443681.html

Guided missile "Thunder-A1" and Gliding kit for guided munitions "Thunder-A2"







I hope this time will not stay as exhibition items as previous products

So now we have Kh-59MK-2.

I'm curious on its datalink pod. Historically the guidance for Kh-59 was done by using APK-9 "Tekon" pod. However this pod is Ukrainian made meaning that it need substitute.

I wonder if the datalink pod is also on display at MAKS.

I wonder if they can replace the separate datalink pod as most modern aircraft will transfer data between aircraft and ground stations and AWACS aircraft via datalink... I suspect expanding that with modern communications systems could allow the elimination for the need for a separate datalink pod.

even infantry soldiers can pass video and images to HQ using datalinks too using standard communications equipment.

missile, Kh-59MK2 according to available information, is almost entirely a new development and is essentially an analog of the famous western KR same class AGM-158 JASSM, Scalp EG / Storm Shadow and Taurus.

Yes it is for sure in the same class and show very similar concept of operation with those foreign cruise missiles.

Someone, anyhow, should remind that all those three weapons presented for the first time and in spotlight at МАКС-2015 in the КТРВ stand (in theirs exportable version : "Х-59МК2", "Гром-Э1" and "Гром-Э2") boast a particular and very important feature that distinguish markedly theirs design : those weapons are all compatible with internal weapon bay of ПАК ФА

Not even one western cruise missile, still at today, is compatible with internal carriage ,both in F-22 and F-35, a factor that not only reduce significantly the effective combat range of the delivering aircraft ,but render attacks to critical enemy installations in the deep of enemy territory much more difficult, if not impossible, because the radar footprint of enemy air defenses and interceptors will be not "reduced" in any way (obviously is necessary to add at what just said that the significantly higher cruise speed that ПАК ФА will be capable to maintain ,in comparison to F-35, in similar strike missions will furtherly reduce the effective SAM/aircraft interception's footprint).


For what concern "Гром-Э1" and "Гром-Э2", i have noticed that several debates has been arisen by those weapons ; in particular several people fail to identify what feature of those weapons induce the makers at ГНПЦ «Звезда-Стрела to show so much pride for the design.



The element in question is represented by the, at now, unparalleled fraction of warhead's weight on the overall weapon mass.

"Гром-Э1" and "Гром-Э2"are export versions (MTCR compliant) of air to ground weapons purposely conceived for the specific dimensions of ПАК ФА weapon bays and altitude and speed of delivery from this Platform;  them are in the same class of US JSOW and JSOW-ER (the unique western products in the class to be qualified for internal carriage on F-35).

Just for comparison a JSOWs (unpowered version) that in future will be mounted in the internal bays of F-35 have a warhead weight of maximum 500 lb (about 226 kg), a "Гром-Э2" (unpowered version ) at similar weapon weight will boast a warhead mass almost double of that !

In substance a single ПАК ФА armed with a similar weapon will be capable to deliver on a target destructive power (at significantly expanded delivery range, thanks to the higher speed of the carrying aircraft and the weapon's aerodynamic layout optimized for supersonic release and...propulsion)  almost equal to that delivered by two F-35 with its JSOWs .  

The powered version -Гром-Э1- has ,still at today, not a western equivalent in F-22/F-35 internal weapon's selection.

MAKS 2015: KRTV adds IR seeker to Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
27 August 2015

More Here: http://www.janes.com/article/53889/maks-2015-krtv-adds-ir-seeker-to-kh-58ushk-anti-radiation-missile

Russia's Tactical Missiles Corporation (KTRV) company demonstrated for the first time at the MAKS 2015 air show its upgraded version of the Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile featuring an imaging infrared (IIR) channel.

This missile intended to be integrated into the internal weapons bays of Russia's new Sukhoi PAK FA (T-50) fighter aircraft.

According to KTRV's general director Boris Obnosov, equipping the Kh-58UShK anti-radiation missile control system with a thermal imaging channel enables it to strike radars operating in pulse mode and turning off when the missile is in its terminal phase.

The Kh-58UShK and Kh-58UShK IIR missiles can be mounted externally on a range of aircraft (using an AKU-58-type pylon) such as the MiG-35, Su-30MK, Su-34 and Su-35, or as the UShK variants of the Kh-58 have folding wings they can be stored in an internal weapons bay (like on the PAK FA) using a UVKU-50-type launcher.

The missile is designed to both hit pre-programmed radar targets and targets detected by the target designation system of the aircraft. The new Kh-58UShK IIR missile has an innovative broadband passive radar seeker working in the 1.2-11 GHz frequency range to seek out enemy radars.

The upgraded antiradar missile weighs 650 kg, is 4.19 m long, has a wingspan of 0.8 m, and a body diameter of 0.38 m. With its wings folded the missile's cross section is 0.4x0.4 m. The missile has a range of up to 245 km, is designed to hit within a radius of 10 m of its target and has a 149 kg warhead.

The Kh-58UShK IIR missile was developed by the Raduga (Rainbow) state design bureau.

Russian Tactical Missiles Corporation unveiled an upgraded version of its new Kh-58UShK antiradar missile with an IIR channel.
The IIR seeker is visible at the base of the nose cone. Source: Nikolai Novichkov

Book. wrote:


Russian Tactical Missiles Corporation unveiled an upgraded version of its new Kh-58UShK antiradar missile with an IIR channel.
The IIR seeker is visible at the base of the nose cone. Source: Nikolai Novichkov

Hmm so basically this is similar as German "Armiger"

Im curious on why Russian choose IR instead of active mmwave radar like one in latest Harm.

Probably because they don't want to alert the target it is being attacked?

IIR is passive and can be used against a fairly wide variety of targets, whereas MMW radar is effective against a more limited range of targets... especially stationary ones.

Ground based radar remains hot long after it is turned off...

BTW the latest HARM is supposed to physically locate the target so even if it turns off it can still hit the target. AFAIK the AS-11 had that capability in its earliest versions, though it restricted its use to aircraft that were dedicated SEAD aircraft...

What is the stage of Russian ramjet powered air to air missiles a la the Meteor ?

I rather suspect they wont bother with ramjet powered AAMs and will likely instead be developing scramjet powered AAMs.

they already have the Kh-31 and family, and of course the SA-6 family of missiles with combined rocket/ramjet propulsion in operational service so the extended time it has taken to develop a ramjet powered AAM suggests they are aiming higher than just a combined rocket ramjet like the Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos and Moskit/Sunburn families of missile.

Of course the R-37M revealed as the RVV-BD with a flight range of over 200km suggests that for the moment the gap of long range AAM is filled means they can take the extra time to get it right... a scramjet powered AAM could be lofted to high altitude and fly at extreme speeds for very long distances... much easier to design than a scramjet powered high speed low flying anti ship missile (AShM).