Μilitary Questions & Answers

The bullet and the cannon ball , both invented 400 years ago ! Both going strong ! No real changes there . But why ? Well many answers , they are cheap , and even if one out of ten , hits target , still we are not breaking the Bank . A GPS / laser guided shell costs 200000 USD ! How many unguided shells , do we get for that ? Even if we fire , say ten against a trench , and one goes in ? So it is cheaper , much cheaper , and it can not be jammed or GPS or ground station taken out by ECM .

And Russia has plenty of artillery . Quality control and ballistic computers allowing for wind effects and even rotation of Earth ! Mean that dozens will not need to be fired . But a few ! The only other improvement is changing the fuse into air burst , instead of contact , to allow penetration of underground bunker and trench .

The UAV brain- washed people , a consequence of UAV success against sandal wearing terrorists , in the 90's and later by the western forces , just note the fail of large and slow UAV , like Turkish Bayragdar ( Persian =flag- bearer ) in Ukraine by Russia AD .


But how about mini - drones ? No not UAV , since all external guidance , in the final analysis , is vulnerable to jamming . And not ATGM either , since mostly suitable for direct attack , not against bunker . But wire- guided , propeller driven drone ? Or quad-copter ? Dropping grenades ? The latter part has been done . Now can a off the shelf UAV be adapted to become wire - guided , with 400 meter range ?

On larger UCAV , same problems exist with external guidance and also being detectable on Radar . There are research now for inertial ( star - light ) navigation . Costs becomes very important in Long wars . See that a £ 700 million pound lethal aid by UK , has inflicted a £10 billion damage in fuel costs to UK ! In Ukraine .

The bullet and the cannon ball , both invented 400 years ago ! Both going strong ! No real changes there . But why ? Well many answers , they are cheap , and even if one out of ten , hits target , still we are not breaking the Bank

The projectile is thousands of years old... the metal ball or stone has been used for a very long time accelerated by slings and bows and all sorts of things.

In terms of what we view as bullets and cannon balls... the former is much younger than 400 years... 400 year old bullets were just balls of metal, and cannon balls as their name implies were also balls... not very aerodynamic and not very accurate.

The modern elongated projectile used in rifles and heavier guns is an elongated projectile that is stabilised in flight by the introduction of spin to balance it in the direction of flight with gyroscopic forces.

Projectiles are 200 years old or less...

A GPS / laser guided shell costs 200000 USD ! How many unguided shells , do we get for that ? Even if we fire , say ten against a trench , and one goes in ? So it is cheaper , much cheaper , and it can not be jammed or GPS or ground station taken out by ECM .

The Soviet and Russian guided shells are not that expensive and the situations can vary and sometimes dictate what you want to use.

I you are in an attack helicopter and 800m away you see a light vehicle... a Vikhr ATGM is just too much of a weapon to hit what is essentially an SUV.

A single rocket from that range has a good chance of a direct hit or a very near miss on the ground, and if it is an 80mm rocket even a near miss will shred the vehicle with fragments... the helicopter could also fire a short burst of cannon fire with 3-4 rounds doing the same thing.

The problem is that a 800m if that vehicle has a 50 cal HMG then it can inflict damage on you so you really want to be engaging them from further away to be safer for the helicopter.

Th problem is that as the range increases your ability to hit a point target with a single rocket diminishes to the point where at maybe 2km or more you need to fire 4-8 rockets to make sure you get one rocket close enough to kill the target.

2km is still too close if the enemy have 23mm AA guns or even ATGMs.

The laser guided rocket means you can loft the rocket into the air and hit targets at 6-7km which would be a waste of unguided rockets even if you fired the entire pods worth of rockets at a single vehicle target.

The laser guided rocket might cost the same as 8-10 unguided rockets, so they make sense because being able to launch a single rocket at a point target at a distance where most return fire is ineffective is worth the extra money.

Saving some money but having to fire hundreds of rockets and still missing or getting much closer and getting damaged or even shot down is not better either.

Having said that if the target is a large group of enemy troops retreating through a forest... lase the distance to the forest and then fire a volley of rockets into the forest from 6-7km... you wont hit any specific person but rockets are area weapons that fragment and spread death and a volley launched from a distance gives you a good spread of death so you actually get better coverage of the area the enemy are retreating through so in addition to being cheaper they are more effective against area targets or situations where you are not 100% sure where the enemy is... there might be enemy sniper fire coming from the edge of a forest or line of hedges... a spread of rockets along the line will make them bug out and move... or at least stop firing for a few seconds why your troops move from cover to cover.

There was a video shown recently of M777 vehicles being set up to fire... a Russian drone filming that dropped a bomb and they packed up and moved... the Russian drone didn't have enough bombs to kill enough enemy troops to make a difference, but if forced them to bug out and move down the road to a forest to hide in... while they were moving the Russians clearly had time to set up an artillery battery to shell them... the video stopped when the first volley of rounds landed beside the forest, but the drone continued to operate so corrections of fire would be calculate and that Russian battery would have pounded that forest for some time.

This highlights that drones are useful, but are not replacements for attack aircraft they are the eyes that make artillery and air attacks more effective.

The UAV brain- washed people , a consequence of UAV success against sandal wearing terrorists , in the 90's and later by the western forces , just note the fail of large and slow UAV , like Turkish Bayragdar ( Persian =flag- bearer ) in Ukraine by Russia AD .

And the enormous body count of bystanders in these American attacks... their intel was so shit that when some ISIS idiots killed some Americans at Kabul and the Americans opened up on the rest of the crowd and killed 150 of the locals trying to leave the country with them, their next step was to bomb and murder a dozen people they initially claimed were the terrorists behind the attack, but we later found out it was a support worker that was helping the US and western forces in the area and 8 or 9 of his children and friends children.

Drones don't mean shit if you don't have good C4IRSTAR...

In that case they made things worse.

But how about mini - drones ? No not UAV , since all external guidance , in the final analysis , is vulnerable to jamming . And not ATGM either , since mostly suitable for direct attack , not against bunker . But wire- guided , propeller driven drone ? Or quad-copter ? Dropping grenades ? The latter part has been done . Now can a off the shelf UAV be adapted to become wire - guided , with 400 meter range ?

Such small drones generally have tiny payloads and their slow flight speed means over time as enemy forces get more used to drones they will just be too vulnerable. A shotgun is effective to 20-30m depending on the load... having a couple of experienced skeet shooters and small drones might not be effective... with buckshot a shotgun is very effective in fighting in built up areas at close range.

You can actually get drones that are launched from 40mm grenade launchers that are fired up 500m or more into the air and then a camera comes down on a parachute which the operator can use to see over cover around their position... I would say a custom designed RPG disposable launch tube could be used to launch drones that could carry enough fuel to loiter for an hour over your position or fly over enemy positions and then come back to be refuelled and reused with a new launch rocket perhaps.

There are research now for inertial ( star - light ) navigation

Already used in very high flying missiles...

GarryB wrote:The Soviet and Russian guided shells are not that expensive and the situations can vary and sometimes dictate what you want to use.

Just 30% cheaper than U.S analogues.

Excalibr is about $80K per round... the smart fuse for the 152mm rounds for Coalition which includes control fins and Glonass guidance are supposed to cost about $1K per unit and can be fitted to any existing round of any type... including old model ammo.

That is 80 times cheaper...

The US just sold some TOW missiles for approximately $52K each... Russia was selling Kornets to India for $5K each... 10 times cheaper.

For 2.6 billion they sold 5,000 TOW missiles... for the same money they would have gotten 52,000 missiles.

And Kornet is a better missile... better penetration, longer range, significantly higher flight speed because it is not dragging a wire, and can be fired from vehicles on the move because no wire to drag...

Saudi Arabia even bought a license to manufacture the Kornet. Egypt already manufactures the RPG-7.
It is a dumb deal if I ever saw one. Probably supposed to be compensated with the heavy helicopters I guess.
That is typical US. A little sweet in the middle of a shit sandwich.

GarryB wrote:Excalibr is about $80K per round... the smart fuse for the 152mm rounds for Coalition which includes control fins and Glonass guidance are supposed to cost about $1K per unit and can be fitted to any existing round of any type... including old model ammo.

Excalibur is compatible with both towed howitzers like M-777 as well as self propelled howitzers like PzH2000. Laser version of the Excalibur incorporates a digital semi-active laser seeker, allowing it to hit moving targets and engage and strike targets without accurate location information. It also reduces the risk associated with GPS jamming.

Excalibur also incorporates far superior base bleed technology.

GarryB wrote:This highlights that drones are useful, but are not replacements for attack aircraft they are the eyes that make artillery and air attacks more effective.

Russia has failed massively to hit moving targets. Whenever, Russia has pounded an area with artillery or air strikes, Ukrainians have quickly moved out of that area. Because they realize Russia will not be able to hit them when they are on the move.

GarryB wrote:Excalibr is about $80K per round... the smart fuse for the 152mm rounds for Coalition which includes control fins and Glonass guidance are supposed to cost about $1K per unit and can be fitted to any existing round of any type... including old model ammo.
That is 80 times cheaper...
The US just sold some TOW missiles for approximately $52K each... Russia was selling Kornets to India for $5K each... 10 times cheaper.
For 2.6 billion they sold 5,000 TOW missiles... for the same money they would have gotten 52,000 missiles.
And Kornet is a better missile... better penetration, longer range, significantly higher flight speed because it is not dragging a wire, and can be fired from vehicles on the move because no wire to drag...

And you are naming the export prices, which are already increased if compared with the domestic market and army orders.
Russian purchase power can be easily tenfold.

How does the: 2S40 Floks 120 mm self-propelled mortar system & 2S41 Drok Mobile Mortar System that have been developed fit into the family of vehicle concept moving forward?

Do they both just belong to the typhoon family or are they being offered to the Russian Army as a replacement of towed artillery systems of similar caliber. So in future wont have towed artillery?

Excalibur is compatible with both towed howitzers like M-777 as well as self propelled howitzers like PzH2000. Laser version of the Excalibur incorporates a digital semi-active laser seeker, allowing it to hit moving targets and engage and strike targets without accurate location information. It also reduces the risk associated with GPS jamming.

Excalibur also incorporates far superior base bleed technology.

Excalibur is a custom designed round that is what it is... fixed warhead type, fixed weight, fixed range... and by the way Base Bleed is very very old technology where a simple very slow rocket burns in the rear of the projectile producing gas that fills the aerodynamic cavity behind the round reducing drag to very low levels.

The Russian design is a fuse with built in guidance and control fins... you can screw it into any Soviet or Russian round with the same fuse pocket size... which means it can be attached to any 152mm Soviet or Russian artillery shell ever made... it can also be fitted to 203mm rounds which use the same fuse pocket dimensions.

This means you can take a WWII soviet 152mm artillery shell of any type and fit this fuse instead of the standard fuse previously used and the shell becomes guided.

You make 5,000 Excaliburs and you have 5K guided artillery rounds... you make 5,000 of these fuses, and you also have 5,000 guided artillery rounds...

The difference is that 80K times 5K equals 400 million US dollars... almost half a billion... and 1K times 5K is 5 million dollars... any wonder the US military budget is ten times more than the Russian budget and more.

Russia has failed massively to hit moving targets. Whenever, Russia has pounded an area with artillery or air strikes, Ukrainians have quickly moved out of that area. Because they realize Russia will not be able to hit them when they are on the move.

That is very amusing that you say that, because Excalibur is a Navstar guided round and it can't hit moving targets either. There was a proposed version that uses laser homing as well but Russian artillery already has plenty of laser guided artillery shells in service and use that do the same thing.

A moving target is easier for attack helicopters to spot and engage too.

And what fuel sources are these moving targets using up?

And you are naming the export prices, which are already increased if compared with the domestic market and army orders.
Russian purchase power can be easily tenfold.

Very true... the markup on military equipment in Russia is tiny for their own military.

How does the: 2S40 Floks 120 mm self-propelled mortar system & 2S41 Drok Mobile Mortar System that have been developed fit into the family of vehicle concept moving forward?

They would probably be candidates for replacing NONA and other wheeled 120mm mortar concepts that may or may not have entered service.

It is quite likely there will be a 120mm mortar turret that is developed and used for the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicle families as well as the DT series of arctic vehicles too.

The Soviets learned and the Germans felt how effective 120mm mortars can be... so much so that the Soviets deployed them very very widely and the Germans adopted them for themselves and used them widely too... they are surprisingly powerful weapons that are relatively lightweight and mobile.

Do they both just belong to the typhoon family or are they being offered to the Russian Army as a replacement of towed artillery systems of similar caliber. So in future wont have towed artillery?

I suspect they will continue to use towed mortars because they are cheap and light and highly mobile and can be delivered by helicopters up the sides of mountains etc etc, but in terms of mobility I think self propelled mortar vehicles will become common and popular.

I always wondered why a BTR-82 vehicle type was not developed with a belt fed 82mm automatic Mortar... perhaps with a water cooled barrel and articulated belt feed instead of the four round clips. A dual feed system for two different 82mm bomb types would allow HE and HEAT rounds to be mixed and fired as needed... devastating fire power with the rate of fire compensating for the light weight round (4kg).

MMBR wrote:

And you are naming the export prices, which are already increased if compared with the domestic market and army orders.
Russian purchase power can be easily tenfold.

Very true... the markup on military equipment in Russia is tiny for their own military.

How does the: 2S40 Floks 120 mm self-propelled mortar system & 2S41 Drok Mobile Mortar System that have been developed fit into the family of vehicle concept moving forward?

They would probably be candidates for replacing NONA and other wheeled 120mm mortar concepts that may or may not have entered service.

It is quite likely there will be a 120mm mortar turret that is developed and used for the Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicle families as well as the DT series of arctic vehicles too.

The Soviets learned and the Germans felt how effective 120mm mortars can be... so much so that the Soviets deployed them very very widely and the Germans adopted them for themselves and used them widely too... they are surprisingly powerful weapons that are relatively lightweight and mobile.

Do they both just belong to the typhoon family or are they being offered to the Russian Army as a replacement of towed artillery systems of similar caliber. So in future wont have towed artillery?

I suspect they will continue to use towed mortars because they are cheap and light and highly mobile and can be delivered by helicopters up the sides of mountains etc etc, but in terms of mobility I think self propelled mortar vehicles will become common and popular.

I always wondered why a BTR-82 vehicle type was not developed with a belt fed 82mm automatic Mortar... perhaps with a water cooled barrel and articulated belt feed instead of the four round clips. A dual feed system for two different 82mm bomb types would allow HE and HEAT rounds to be mixed and fired as needed... devastating fire power with the rate of fire compensating for the light weight round (4kg).

Thanks for the good answer Garry. Speaking of these new systems being displayed and offered.... where does one find out the purchase price of weapons from russia/ussr or any country really? Its easy to find the news reports of sales contracts but the actual company websites don't show any sale prices. (e.g.  http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/)

That's a good idea, Chinese are trying it with their knock off infantry mobility vehicles for their airborne and mountain warfare troops (https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/PCP001_(SM1)_Chinese_81mm_Self-Propelled_Rapid-Deployment_Mortar). A BTR-82 would give amphibious, good crew protection and suited to the demands of rapid offensives combining firepower and mobility. Constantly changing position rapidly, it would not be fun to play hide and seek with.

Even if they thought they didn't think they needed it, there would have been an appetite for it overseas. Curious choice not to develop export market

Speaking of these new systems being displayed and offered.... where does one find out the purchase price of weapons from russia/ussr or any country really? Its easy to find the news reports of sales contracts but the actual company websites don't show any sale prices. (e.g. http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/)

There is useful information on the www.sipri.org website, but it is often estimation normally based on the total contract value and the number of items bought... but of course such contracts often include training and support equipment that might change the price.

Often later orders for things like missiles or launchers give a better indication of unit prices but there are other variables too of course.

There is obviously a good reason for the lack of prices given out at airshows and arms shows... different customers will get different products at different rates, and most things come in different packages that change the prices.

For instance India probably paid more for their S-400s than Turkey or China did, but they will likely also be getting better versions that are more complete with the little extra bits and pieces to make it more effective and more likely to survive combat... equally China for instance might only have bought things they wanted a good look at and not bothered buying things they probably couldn't make their own versions of.

In a sense the usefulness of a 120mm mortar armed vehicle in the current Russian army would not be that high simply because they have BMP-3s with 100mm guns that perform a very similar function to similar ranges.

But their next generation vehicles will be using 57mm grenade launcher/guns so the introduction of 120mm mortars mounted in vehicles becomes more useful too.

Their VDV forces use the NONA and has been very popular leading to the Vena vehicle, but they have been offering vehicles like the Nona-SVK...

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/missile-systems-multiple-rocket-launchers-mrl-atgm-systems-and-field-artillery-guns/nona-svk/

Called 2S23 I think...

Question about drones being made more survivable and used in SEAD and close air support in high risk areas , before support aircraft carry out heavier missions . I mentioned previously using small fast drones in air to air engagements , in point defence , in an ROV fashion , slaved to ground controller by laser or Radio . I also mentioned using small and fast drones in SEAD ,  but either the drone has sensors warning against Radar of lasers from AD , and does evasive , or again ground controller carries out evasive .

I think that a simpler way for drones to survive against enemy AD , and carry out SEAD , and ground support in high risk areas , is to allow it to have a complete random flight path . It could change speed direction and altitude , continuously , on it's way to the target . Like a step function . This could be done , because of GPS . Fixed targets only need the attack drone in operation . Moving targets perhaps two . One as target spotter and illuminator and other as receiver and attacker . The loitering drone could also be on a random flight path around target .

The cycling time and change of flight path of drones is always shorter than cycling time of AD acquisition , firing and time to reach drone . So by the time AD locks on drone and fires and missile reaches location of drone , the drone has changed position , out of blast radius of missile . Can this be done now with small fast Russian drones like Lancet ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2N_wKXQ6MXA

Question about drones being made more survivable and used in SEAD and close air support in high risk areas , before support aircraft carry out heavier missions .

The biggest advantage of drones is their low cost... if you start putting armour and self defence equipment on them they will just get less disposable and more like the attack aircraft and helicopters they already have.

Drones will adapt and develop and get better but it will be a while before they can replace everything effectively.

A rifled artillery barrel has life-span of " x" number of firings . After this period then it usually is discarded , as regular shell will not work efficiently . Cost and complexity of providing different over-size shells , the logistics and the worn rifling etc ,  is not practical . Question is : can a rifled artillery barrel be cheaply machined to turn into smooth - bore , and new FSDS round developed that has spring loaded ( or larger )  sabot , that will fit new barrel , even after wear and tear ? The dart , of an explosive or frag type ? Give new life to old barrels , cheaply ? Cost and complexity ? Use t-62 round in 152 barrel ? different sabot ? Modified sabot ?( very high velocity , accurate flat trajectory ) Used in more direct fire role , beyond range of ATGM , 8-9 km . The edge of trench or bunker can be eroded , exposing trench .

Edit  :The dart should penetrate several meters of Earth or a couple of meters of concrete . After exiting this barrier , a small explosive detects free space , and takes out the occupants , like AT4 ATGW design married to APFSDS round ! Or Earth- penetrating ( EP ) EPFSDS .


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot

An improved version of their RPO-A was the first Soviet weapon I had heard of with advanced fusing like that that adapted to what it hit automatically.

Yes the round does not have to puncture the hard target , if target is in open trench . This round should be able to be fired from converted smooth- bore artillery , if casing is strong enough to withstand pressure and a sabot fitted . If round can hit target at 8-9 km , out of range of ATGW , then it can save troops going close to fire it . If many spare rounds available , or production cheaper than normal 152 mm round , then good idea .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel

Edit : A slow burning propellant will reduce acceleration , for entire length of barrel , saving round from breaking up . A test should be cheap to find out . Keeping the casing and instead of rocket motor , fill with explosives and fire in a sabot . Probably a host of different rounds can be adapted for this purpose . Anything about 100 mm in diameter and strong to resist buckling under force of acceleration . Using smooth bore cannon . Old ammo or not being used and old cannon get new life .For cost of sabot .

Btr 80/82 has 120mm mortar rifle variant
Bmd has 120mm mortar rifle variant
Bmp 3 has 120mm mortar rifle variant
Does bmp 1 or 2 have 120mm mortar rifle variant?

Not AFAIK.

Construction of small drones , can be improved . If reports are true , then a proportion of drones are getting hit , but with what ? My guess is small arms fire . So to stop this , two tactics can be used : ( 1 ) Give the body of drone or material more weight by Kevlar . ( 2 ) Give the body of drone material , less weight . The first tactic may stop a small calibre round , but the penalty is much more weight and far less fuel or weight of warhead , plus the fact that the round is absorbed by Kevlar and momentum of round will topple the drone and cause crash . The second tactic is to allow a thin membrane for drone body , like WW2 , Hurricane fighter with cloth body . The round then harmlessly passes through , without toppling drone .

The warhead on such drone can be stable and inert also , to resist explosion if hit by small calibre round . The wires and controls can be armoured , together with engine housing . All wires and electronics can be collected in as small area as possible also . The fuel tank can be self-sealing , in case of being hit , like some rubber tyres . What do you think ?

Small drones are by definition small so most parts will be important for its structural integrity... the only way around that would be duplication... where an arm strut that holds an electric motor with a propeller (like those 6 propeller flying things) then having two or three arms for each propeller so a bullet taking out one arm will not take out that propeller will add weight and bulk and make a hit more likely... you could put armour on it but that adds weight and reduce speed and increases size and bulk and reduces endurance and range.

I think it makes more sense to keep them simple and light and cheap and just fly a bit higher... a 5.45 or 556 bullet might reach 2km altitude but its effect on target would be poor because its velocity would be so low it would do little damage.

I remember the Americans made a range of related gatling guns and one of them was in 5.56mm calibre but it was found to be a poor performer... much heavier than a 5.56mm LMG like the FN Minimi, but unable to penetrate the sheet metal body of a car at 800m reliably, so their smallest deployed mini gun is the 7.62 x 51mm version.

Likewise the smallest calibre Soviet minigun was in 7.62 x54Rmm too.

Used on Ka-29 helicopters.

Good idea to fly high on route to target . But drone has to dive to target in the end ! Here they wait for it . I think no need for multi- rotor arrangement . The structural integrity can be achieved by having a strong carbon fibre tubular frame , around this , some resin impregnated cloth , can provide aerodynamic skin . Other details as I stated before , I think . Bullet passes through .


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fml45w-wBl8


This idea makes even more sense , for reusable drone , that discharges load and returns to base . It does not have to lower it's altitude too much . Dive bombing can enable using dumb Iron bombs of say 50 kg . Plenty to take out Tank or exposed target . Makes operation far cheaper , saves electronics on drone .

The structural integrity can be achieved by having a strong carbon fibre tubular frame , around this , some resin impregnated cloth , can provide aerodynamic skin .

The problem is that when a bullet punches a hole in that tube frame there is a good chance it will fail and the drone will crash.

Over building it with multiple tubes to each electric motor and propeller just makes it heavier and increases the chances of hits.

I honestly like what the Russians are doing... heavier drones probably more expensive operating at higher altitudes with good cameras looking for targets and watching attacks to see if they are successful or if follow up attacks are needed to get a kill, plus very low flying more manouverable drones with cheaper cameras to actually fly into the targets and destroy them.

With the type of drone we are talking about a metal ( or before that wooden structure) is excessive and not needed... in fact foam and plastic would probably be better and cheaper and easier to mass produce.

This idea makes even more sense , for reusable drone , that discharges load and returns to base . It does not have to lower it's altitude too much . Dive bombing can enable using dumb Iron bombs of say 50 kg . Plenty to take out Tank or exposed target . Makes operation far cheaper , saves electronics on drone .

The problem is that you get precision with low altitude operations and drones don't do precision bombing that well... I don't think it is a coincidence that a number of the new small drone optimised weapons the Russians are showing are 20-50-100kgs in weight but tend to be guided weapons which compensates for their light payload.

I would say a better payload would be guided and unguided rockets in 57mm and 80mm calibre... those new box shaped rocket launch tubes the Russians have developed would be ideal to build semi recessed into the fuselage of a medium sized drone so it can be lowered to launch and raised to minimise drag for long flight endurance.

But again I think super cheap simple suicide drones with 30-50kg warheads, with bigger drones with better cameras and much better endurance make more sense.

The overwatch drone needs low drag light weight and long endurance and excellent cameras... flying at 5-6km altitude would mean they are well out of small arms fire range and their lack of IR and radar signature should make them difficult targets for enemy platforms that can't fly up and get close.

These drones look for targets and follow targets they spot.

The suicide drones would be best be able to deploy large wings after a ballistic flight... in other words you are flying your overwatch drone around the place and 50km from your position it spots a target or group of targets... a suicide drone flying at 300km per hour would take 10 minutes to fly to that target area... in the mean time more targets might be spotted and have to be left while waiting for your drone to get there.

In comparison a suicide drone based on the 300mm Smerch rocket, or the 220mm Uragan rocket could be launched via a supersonic ballistic rocket... when it gets close to the target area it could deploy large wings and dive attack the targets with simple GLONASS locators getting it close to the target and an optical sensor to find the target... the overwatch drone could flash the target with a laser to help the suicide drone find the target, with the suicide drone with reduced rocket fuel and perhaps a 50kg HEAT payload with the side walls of the warhead lined with anti personnel fragments to maximise its effect.

This would also have the added benefit of making follow up attacks easier because the rocket will get the drone to the location of the target very quickly.

The 300mm rocket has a 100kg warhead so that is plenty to design a suicide drone with a 50kg HEAT warhead and seeker and wings... in fact you could put two drones in tandem... a 300mm top attack HEAT warhead would be devastating and coming down nearly vertically means the fragmentation pattern would be very effective because it will all be going sideways and will create an even pattern of death around the target...

You could design the warheads to have a long focal length and make them go off 5m above the target making APS systems less effective... two 25kg HEAT warheads 300mm across would be very powerful... Kornet and Hellfire are both 152mm calibre, so this is almost double.

I'm a little bit confused between the TOE differences between a russian division with its regiments vs russian brigades.

I understand that regiments and brigades are same TOE just brigades are "independent" and regiments belong to division. Please correct me if I have gotten this wrong.

From what I can see the difference is mostly with divisions having a complete tor regiment in addition to battalion of sa10 and battalion of missile-artillery. Division has extra artillery as well (1-2 battalions). Would this be the case? If not, how do the structure and TOE differ in modern russia between divisions and brigades?

Is it west and central districts use division structure and other regions use brigades - as this is more calibrated to threats they face? Or is entire thing now battalion battle groups? Sorry if this is an obvious question/answer, it's confusing following the changes.

I'm a little bit confused between the TOE differences between a russian division with its regiments vs russian brigades.

I understand that regiments and brigades are same TOE just brigades are "independent" and regiments belong to division. Please correct me if I have gotten this wrong.
Incorrect, the regiment has much smaller support units (generally a company of each as opposed to a battalion in a brigade and division). They would however both have the same maneuver elements with 3 battalions of motor rifle and 1 battalion of tanks or vice versa for a tank unit.

From what I can see the difference is mostly with divisions having a complete tor regiment in addition to battalion of sa10 and battalion of missile-artillery. Division has extra artillery as well (1-2 battalions). Would this be the case? If not, how do the structure and TOE differ in modern russia between divisions and brigades?
First of all they would have SA-8b's or Sa-15's in a division or brigade not any sa-10's. The difference between them would be minor. In a division there are 16 fire units and a brigade SAM unit would have 12. A brigade would have a battalion of missile-artillery while a regiment would just have a battery (company). For artillery a brigade has 2 SP howitzer bns and 1 MRL bn. A regiment would have 1 SP howitzer or 1 mixed artillery bn with 2 batteries of field howitzers and 1 battery of MRL's. In addition a division has an artillery regiment with 2 SP howitzer bn's and 1 MRL bn.

Is it west and central districts use division structure and other regions use brigades - as this is more calibrated to threats they face?
Yes to a point. There are 6 divisions in the West, 4 in the South and 1 each in both the Central and Eastern Districts.

Or is entire thing now battalion battle groups?
Combined arms units were standard in Soviet times and are standard for NATO. It is modern warfare and "battle group" is actually the NATO term. More attention perhaps given to the Battalion Tactical Group (BTg) with the mixing of contract and conscript soldiers. The 1 year conscripts are not sent into harms way and each regiment or brigade forms 2 BTg's with professional contract soldiers for operations. Each brigade or regiment has the equipment to form 3 BTg's however the third unit being conscripts under training.

Sorry if this is an obvious question/answer, it's confusing following the changes.