Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Share

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Guided ordnance (PGM) in Soviet and Russian Air Force

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:34 pm

    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?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 02, 2013 11:21 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:05 pm

    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)

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  Regular on Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:26 pm

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:47 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  SOC on Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:05 am

    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.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:20 am

    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...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:43 pm


    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?

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:56 pm

    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.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:15 pm

    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.)

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:26 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:54 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  TR1 on Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:57 am

    Wait, Su-25 had no stand-off?

    Kh-29 did not exist?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:06 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:43 pm

    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.


    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:47 pm

    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.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:54 pm

    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.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  TR1 on Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:39 am

    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.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:47 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:31 pm

    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... Smile

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  George1 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:53 am

    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



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Grom 1 & 2

    Post  George1 on Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:30 am

    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



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Aug 29, 2015 5:11 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kh-59MK-2 missile

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:31 pm

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:07 pm

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Air-to-Surface Missiles (Short Range and Standoff)

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:20 pm


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:20 pm